Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Hunting Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old 02-11-2009, 05:36 AM
Duk Dog Duk Dog is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,634
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duk Dog View Post
On a side note there are rumblings that at the AFGA conference there will either be Minister Morton (or an assistant to him) present as well as representatives from Montana to make a presentation. If there is truth to that it would seem logical that they will do their best to sell Alberta outdoorsmen on a very American style of land access program involving landowner financial compensation. As much as Canada and the USA are very similar, there are easily just as many differences between the two countries.
To clarify it sounds like there may be a few people from MT that are helping with the presentation, which sounds like it is a lengthy one. Anyone going to the AFGA conference? It would be interesting to see if Minister Morton goes, or if he sends a scapegoat.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 02-11-2009, 05:43 AM
Duk Dog Duk Dog is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,634
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie View Post
Guys..
This was comming.. It should come as no shock to anyone.

Lets give it a chance and see what happens.

Its designed to allow more access in Southern Alberta.
Its designed to save habitat
Its designed to appease some hard nosed land owners.

Hopefully it will work.
I look forward to seeing the final copy and see it implemented.

This sure looks a whole lot better than the program that allowed landowners to sell tags.

Jamie
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duk Dog View Post
Where is all this access issue in southern AB? (other than the famed Macintyre and Deseret & Knight Ranches in 108)

How will it ($20/hunter) save habitat?
Who will monitor this "habitat" program?
Where will funding come from to run the "habitat" program?

What if these "hard nosed land owners" decide they want more money? Will they (SRD) continue to appease them? At what cost? To what end?

For petes sake the SRD is already short budget money, officers, biologists etc..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie View Post
Duk.. Those are all valid questions.
Unfortunatly, at this point no one has the answers. At least on this board.


Here is the Link for Montanas Block Program. On the surface it doesnt look that bad, but perhaps a bit more searching is in order.

http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/hunteracce...n/default.html

Jamie
Seems to be a problem with things here. You point out the intent of the program you are willing to give a try and support. I ask some questions to clarify the intent of the program, and then you acknowledge they are good questions that nobody knows the answers to them (on the board anyway). I'm not so sure I'd be willing to support this program, without this information first.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 02-11-2009, 07:32 AM
MathewsArcher MathewsArcher is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Calgary,Alberta
Posts: 1,059
Default

http://www.pheasantsforevercalgary.c...al08-27-08.doc

The draft document from 8/27/08...............interesting read.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 02-11-2009, 07:47 AM
MathewsArcher MathewsArcher is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Calgary,Alberta
Posts: 1,059
Default

Quote:
Open Spaces Process Anything but Open
In March 2008 Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (SRD) withdrew one of the two portions of
the Open Spaces program due to public pressure. Under the Hunting for Habitat component, landowners
would have received 10 to 15 percent of the province’s elk hunting tags to sell to hunters. The public
reaction was virtually unanimous: this is unacceptable because it is paid hunting and a step toward
privatizing wildlife, which is a public resource.
What is left of Open Spaces is the Recreation Access Management Program (RAMP), which proposes to
pay agricultural landowners for allowing access to their land for hunting and fishing. The pilot program is
to run from 2009 to 2012 and will cover a huge triangle of prairie sweeping south from Lethbridge to the
U.S. border.
SRD will administer the program and will pay each landowner a maximum of $2,000 per year per section
of land for allowing public access and for retaining wildlife habitat. For large landowners with 10 or 20
sections of land, this could add up to a substantial amount.
The RAMP proposal was amended after SRD withdrew the Hunting for Habitat portion of Open Spaces.
In a November 5 telephone conversation, an SRD spokesperson told AWA that the draft proposal went
through a “public consultation” process, which consisted of sending the draft RAMP to selected hunting
groups and landowners, “the two major impacted groups,” for comment, with a deadline of September 30.
No conservation groups, including AWA, were contacted. While we were told that anyone could have
requested the draft proposal and provided feedback, the SRD website contains no mention of the Open
Spaces program, including RAMP. The information on the University of Calgary website
(poli.ucalgary.ca/wildlifestewardship) has not been updated since sometime before March 2008, and
accessing any current information takes considerable tenacity and/or luck. SRD offered AWA an
additional two weeks (from the date of our conversation) to comment on the new RAMP draft.
There is no plan for additional public consultation on the RAMP pilot project, although SRD may gather
“focus groups” to decide on the final details. A request will go to the Treasury Board for funding, and
SRD hopes to begin the pilot in time for the fall 2009 hunting season.
Many questions remain. How much will this cost Alberta taxpayers and what are the benefits to those
who are not hunters? Should government money be used to compensate landowners for allowing access
to a small proportion of Albertans? Does this open the door to paid hunting and privatizing wildlife? Why
has this entire process not been transparent and accessible to those who will be paying for it? And most
important, why is the Government of Alberta allowing the degradation and loss of excellent wildlife
habitat on public land while paying landowners for retention and enhancement of habitat on private land?
– Joyce Hildebrand
Not often do I agree with an AWA stance......
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 02-11-2009, 08:00 AM
Duk Dog Duk Dog is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,634
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie View Post
Guys I don’t know if this will work, but as a progressive hunter I am willing to listen at the very least. I will be talking with Ted on Saturday night and see what his thoughts are.
I will share any pertinent info if I get it.
Jamie
Hopefully he is more forthcoming with you than when you met with him about this time last year. I recall he didn't offer any new or enlightening tidbits. Be sure to share any new info you hear from him with us.
Thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 02-11-2009, 08:04 AM
Duk Dog Duk Dog is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,634
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duk Dog View Post
On a side note there are rumblings that at the AFGA conference there will either be Minister Morton (or an assistant to him) present as well as representatives from Montana to make a presentation. If there is truth to that it would seem logical that they will do their best to sell Alberta outdoorsmen on a very American style of land access program involving landowner financial compensation. As much as Canada and the USA are very similar, there are easily just as many differences between the two countries.
No doubt their presentation has to do with how the program will be implemented this fall. At this point I'd guess it has nothing to do with looking for feedback from members of AFGA, or any other group for that matter.
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 02-11-2009, 08:13 AM
Waxy Waxy is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,203
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie View Post
Well Waxy.. Friend would be a rather large and inacurate word. I would classify myself at best as a sportsmen who has had the pleasure of meeting him a few times. He will be at the dinner I am going to, and since this issue is important to me, I will be talking with him if I get the chance. He is very open and willing to chat.
I'm sure he is, he's a politician, it's his job to pretend to care. Cyncical? Yes. But he's done nothing to prove to me otherwise.

He may be smiling and nodding, but he's done absolutely nothing to show me that he's "open and willing to chat" with the sportsmen of AB, in fact, the opposite is true.

Quote:
And yes, I do believe he thinks he doing what is best for Alberta. Not just Hunters, but all out door enthusiasts and land owners.
But does he realize that he's not a dictator?

He's an elected official. His job is to represent the wishes of the people, NOT his own personal agenda. He may truly believe that he's right and his ideas are best for AB (I doubt it), but quite frankly, that's irrelevent. The people have spoken on the issue.

Quote:
As for the Top Dog comment.. He is the Minister. The premier takes what he suggests very seriously. And he is the Top dog when it comes to F/W stuff.
For now...

Quote:
As for the deaf and Dumb Donkey part.. Are you saying you are qualified for the job? (JOKE!)
I was thinking more about some of the Tories that got elected and put into Minister's positions...

Waxy

P.S. I'm overqualified.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 02-11-2009, 08:16 AM
bubbasno1
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duk Dog View Post
No doubt their presentation has to do with how the program will be implemented this fall. At this point I'd guess it has nothing to do with looking for feedback from members of AFGA, or any other group for that matter.
There sole purpose will be to get the vote to go there way. They in my opinion are not looking for any input.

From what I have heard. The people who will be there are Ted, Jim Allen, a Montana Resident hunter, a Montana landowner, a Canadian who uses the BMP, one of the biologists that developed the BMP and finally the person that manages the relations between hunters and landowners for the BMP.

Bubba

Last edited by bubbasno1; 02-11-2009 at 11:55 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 02-11-2009, 08:17 AM
LongDraw LongDraw is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,707
Default

Well I was hunting in Montana this past fall on Block management lands. The pieces of property where you can just sign in at the box and hunt were properties that you could generally get permission and hunt before block management. Generally for Antelope, upland game and some marginal Mule Deer habitat. The ranches where you want to hunt elk and mule deer are all tied up with outfitters who have deals with the landowners. It did work good to streamline the process of accessing land. No landowner to hunt down or contact and we just researched where the open blocks were without having to contact landowners. We were hunting Antelope.

Do you honestly think that you will be hunting the deseret ranch because now they get $20 to let you access the property? Time will tell I guess.

The RAMP program is about perception. The reward to participating landowners will be landowner permits that they can market as they wish. Again time will tell.

Straight from a landowners mouth, they will be brokering deals with outfitters to market and run the hunts.

What this equates to is outfitters gaining more allocations from the resident pool of tags once the landowners get permits, IMO the RAMP program is the first step to this becoming reality.

Last edited by LongDraw; 02-11-2009 at 09:44 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 02-11-2009, 08:18 AM
Waxy Waxy is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,203
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duk Dog View Post
Seems to be a problem with things here. You point out the intent of the program you are willing to give a try and support. I ask some questions to clarify the intent of the program, and then you acknowledge they are good questions that nobody knows the answers to them (on the board anyway). I'm not so sure I'd be willing to support this program, without this information first.
I couldn't agree more Duk Dog.

The story from day one with OSA has been that "the details need fleshing out". What does that mean? That's simply not acceptable to me. You don't agree to play the game without knowing the rules first. Quite frankly, I don't think anyone knows the answers, and I don't think you're going to get them. Once they're written down, it gets a lot harder to change them or make them up...

As the saying goes, "the devil's in the details".

Waxy
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 02-11-2009, 08:49 AM
raised by wolves raised by wolves is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,280
Default

Marketting and "Guided service only" is where I see this is headed. Look no further than some of the same guys that raised hell about the bow hunters supposedly taking all the trophy mule deer prior to rifle season and lobbied to have the archery season shortened several years back. Many of the same faces are clawing for an opportunity through Open Spaces.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 02-11-2009, 09:01 AM
gunslinger's Avatar
gunslinger gunslinger is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,919
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LongDraw View Post
Well I was hunting in Montana this past fall on Block management lands. The pieces of property where you can just sign in at the box and hunt were properties that you could generally get permission and hunt before block management. Generally for Antelope, upland game and some marginal Mule Deer habitat. The ranches where you want to hunt elk and mule deer are all tied up with outfitters who have deals with the landowners. It did work good to streamline the process of accessing land. No landowner to hunt down or contact and we just researched where the open blocks were without having to contact landowners. We were hunting Antelope.

Do you honestly think that you will be hunting the deseret ranch because now they get $20 to let you access the property? Time will tell I guess.

The RAMP program is about perception. The reward to participating landowners will be landowner permits that they can market as they wish. Again time will tell.

Straight from Blaine Marrs mouth, they will be brokering deals with outfitters to market and run the hunts.

What this equates to is outfitters gaining more allocations from the resident pool of tags once the landowners get permits, IMO the RAMP program is the first step to this becoming reality.

yup longdraw you and i have both played this game.,,payed for access on our out of country hunts and im afraid your right on your bottom statements, i hunted elk and antelope in wyoming last year, wyoming is unreal at how much the outfitters pay the farmers. it has taken away the locals hunting on this land for sure.
And then of course we go on the outfitted hunt and pay the access fee to hunt there.bcause of the quality of animals.
This happens in alot of countries and ive hunted every continent except australia.
I sure hope the landowners dont get tags cause it will be strictly outfitters that get em.......Then watch the cash cow begin.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 02-11-2009, 09:32 AM
duffy4 duffy4 is offline
Gone Hunting
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Rocky Mountain House
Posts: 5,219
Default

Often when I see a "hot topic" that is gaining a lot of posts I'll click on the number of posts and it gives a break down of who is posting and how many times.

This is a really hot topic of concern to many. Well not really so "many".

Of the 99 posts there are three members who have posted 11 times each that is 33 of the 99.

The first 7 posters are responcible for 55 of the 99 posts.

So again there is a very vocal minority who are making it appear as if this is a really hot topic.

I know that they are all really motivated to save us all from the end of the world as we know it. (weather we want to be saved or not)
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 02-11-2009, 09:34 AM
LongDraw LongDraw is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,707
Default

For those of you that say "give it a chance", I suggest you research where programs like this have lead in the Western states. If you believe that this will lead to more resident access then you really need to dig a little deeper. Curious to those that say "give it a chance" went to any of the meetings, or talked to the landowners pushing this? The landowners hardly talk about RAMP, but they sure do have feelings about HFH.

RAMP is the smoke and mirrors to give the perception that these landowners deserve landowner tags as they participate in giving residents unfettered access through RAMP. This is the only link that I see with the two programs. This is my own conclusion after discussion with some of parties of interest.

Last edited by LongDraw; 02-11-2009 at 09:46 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 02-11-2009, 10:05 AM
Waxy Waxy is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,203
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by duffy4 View Post
Often when I see a "hot topic" that is gaining a lot of posts I'll click on the number of posts and it gives a break down of who is posting and how many times.

This is a really hot topic of concern to many. Well not really so "many".

Of the 99 posts there are three members who have posted 11 times each that is 33 of the 99.

The first 7 posters are responcible for 55 of the 99 posts.

So again there is a very vocal minority who are making it appear as if this is a really hot topic.

I know that they are all really motivated to save us all from the end of the world as we know it. (weather we want to be saved or not)
We know where you stand, even if you don't have the courage to state it publicly. Your attempts to minimize the importance of this discussion are duely noted, and shame on you for it. Whether you're pro or con, this is the single biggest issue that will ever face sportsmen in this province, and it should be at the forefront of discussion.

There is a LARGE silent majority on AO that opposes OSA, that's been proven time and again. Furthermore, the OSA proposal was defeated UNANIMOUSLY at the last AFGA convention (which you attended and voted at).

Do all the post counting you want, it doesn't change the reality of the situation, and it certainly doesn't diminish the importance of this topic for every sportsman in AB.

Waxy
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 02-11-2009, 10:29 AM
Duk Dog Duk Dog is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,634
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by duffy4 View Post
Often when I see a "hot topic" that is gaining a lot of posts I'll click on the number of posts and it gives a break down of who is posting and how many times.

This is a really hot topic of concern to many. Well not really so "many".

Of the 99 posts there are three members who have posted 11 times each that is 33 of the 99.

The first 7 posters are responcible for 55 of the 99 posts.

So again there is a very vocal minority who are making it appear as if this is a really hot topic.

I know that they are all really motivated to save us all from the end of the world as we know it. (weather we want to be saved or not)
Duffy - with OS, RAMP, or what ever it is officially called, everyone is entitled to their opinion for or against, or even to sit on the fence. I believe that I for the most part sit on one side of the fence, and I suspect you may be on the other side. Fair enough. If you have knowledge or opinions that are in support of this program I for one would honestly like to hear them. The "against" side of things tends to be strong here on the AO board, but if you can shed light on the "pro" side of the program it would be worth hearing about.

Last edited by Duk Dog; 02-11-2009 at 11:39 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 02-11-2009, 10:43 AM
MAV
 
Posts: n/a
Default

To start I think the greatest minister in that position was the one that included in the Wildlife Act that there will be no paid hunting or paying for access of the public trust.

The rest of this stuff is fluff in my opinion, I know at least three land owners that closed there land to hunting on Sunday because they wanted Sunday off , I know that Len Mitzell came up with the Hunting Heritage Act and moved it forward and I know that if Morton was such a greet minister you wouldn’t have hunters so upset at him, you wouldn’t have members of watershed groups in the front ranges so upset with him, you wouldn’t have Métis suing him and waiting for the feds to come up with a final ruling and you wouldn’t have academics questioning his move on the forestry in the south.

At a point in this argument I too was able to see how a Block Mgmt. type program might work but I have since completely abandoned this. Not only is the cost something that will have every Albertan tax payer upset with hunters, but the basic background is not right for Alberta. The history of the BMP was to help resident hunters gain access in an environment that was lopsided in favor of private well financed outfitters. In essence the state became an outfitter for the resident hunters. In Alberta I see this type of program actually facilitating the move to allowing private outfitters to gain the right to pay to lock up land. Why would the govt. want to stay in that business we’ve seen them privatize everything else.

Here’s my solution, beef up illegal access charges, beef up the “No Paid Hunting” part of the Act, in fact a good idea was floated awhile back, if the hunting heritage act wants to show “heritage” include that portion there because my hunting heritage includes no paid hunting. Force these two sides to come up with the solutions by having personal contact so that people aren’t scared of the public like in Jamie’s world, and if problem wildlife needs addressing SRD has to come up with the solution only if the first solution of hunter access was allowed. Get back the enforcement arm of SRD, like every other aspect of this province enforcement is a joke because of a lack of boots on the ground, and finally include an education program that includes land ethics, conservation ethics along with hunter training and like Bubba said a lesson on how to find landowners and perhaps a lesson on how to approach people to gain access.

PS if we quit bitching then the bitching from the other side wins.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 02-11-2009, 10:47 AM
Waxy Waxy is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,203
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by duffy4 View Post
Often when I see a "hot topic" that is gaining a lot of posts I'll click on the number of posts and it gives a break down of who is posting and how many times.

This is a really hot topic of concern to many. Well not really so "many".

Of the 99 posts there are three members who have posted 11 times each that is 33 of the 99.

The first 7 posters are responcible for 55 of the 99 posts.

So again there is a very vocal minority who are making it appear as if this is a really hot topic.

I know that they are all really motivated to save us all from the end of the world as we know it. (weather we want to be saved or not)
I didn't realize that post display option was available.

Here's a couple of stats that I took away from the data available -

By my count, as of 10:42AM, there are 42 separate individuals who have expressed their opinions in this thread in the last 24 hours (a large number based on my experience of the average number of posters to any given thread on the forums) - 38 are against RAMP, 1-2 are for it, and there are 1-2 that are on the fence or haven't expressed an opinion. That equates to over 90% of the posters being opposed to RAMP.

I think those are pretty significant stats and make this a pretty "hot topic"...

Waxy
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 02-11-2009, 10:53 AM
MathewsArcher MathewsArcher is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Calgary,Alberta
Posts: 1,059
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAV View Post
To start I think the greatest minister in that position was the one that included in the Wildlife Act that there will be no paid hunting or paying for access of the public trust.
To make Open Spaces work this will have to be removed from the Wildlfie Act. It was widely speculated that an Order in Council would be used to remove this from the Act when Open Spaces was first proposed. I would watch for an order in council removing it from the Act over the next few months.

If that happens that will be Morton's legacy to Alberta's sportsmen.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 02-11-2009, 12:02 PM
Steamer08 Steamer08 is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 35
Default

If any of you think that we do not have paid hunting in our province right now, you really need to pull your heads out. There are ranchers and other landowners who only allow outfitters on their property. Do you think this is because the outfitters are just really nice guys. NO, it is because the landowners are receiving kickbacks from the outfitters. Do you think that years back Jackie Bushman paid the same as the next hunter for the huge whitetail he shot on the Majestic ranch at Buffalo. I'm sure the outfitter charged him appropriately for this buck they had set aside for him. And I am sure Majestic gets a kickback for only allowing the outftter access to this land. This not only goes on in big game hunting but also for bird hunting. The real problem for bird hunting is there is no need for outfitters, so the hunters can pay the landowners themselves. No paper trail.

I feel that as long as the government maintains their focus on this project and does not allow landowners the legal right to obtain monies themselves from hunters this program could work. It would need to be set up in a way that if a landowner opts into this program they cannot deny anyone who pays the $20.00 access. This way it would not just be friends and outfitters getting the access to line their pockets. Those of you who think $20.00 is to much for a day of hunting need to realize how much the land they are hunting on is worth.

I do beleive the reason for WMU 108 is because of the McIntyre and Knight ranches. I have moved drilling rigs into these places and I sh@t you not, you should see how many deer are there. I personally would love the oppotunity to bag a monster muley there.

Let's not forget that hunting has probably denied in the first place because of some unethical disrespectfull hunters in the past. It may not be the case here, but most posted land is the result of these actions. This program will not work and no one will ever have access again is this crap keeps going on. These ranches and other landowners will not see this a cash cow and opt out as quickly as they opted in.

And if any of you out there feel that there should be free access to all land because we all own the wildlife on it should really move to a peoples republic. Then the government owns all the land and you can have a free for all. As for me, I love our democratic way of life which includes free enterprise and personal ownership of property. It doesn't matter if we own a lot and house in Calgary or a 4 township ranch, the fact is we OWN it and get to decide for ourselves who or what we let on. The exception being denying access to oil companies who OWN the rights underground.

I feel that if this program is implemented properly (which it probably won't because it is a government program) it could be very beneficial to ALL Albertans to hunt places where we previously couldn't.
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 02-11-2009, 12:22 PM
bubbasno1
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by duffy4 View Post
Often when I see a "hot topic" that is gaining a lot of posts I'll click on the number of posts and it gives a break down of who is posting and how many times.

This is a really hot topic of concern to many. Well not really so "many".

Of the 99 posts there are three members who have posted 11 times each that is 33 of the 99.

The first 7 posters are responcible for 55 of the 99 posts.

So again there is a very vocal minority who are making it appear as if this is a really hot topic.

I know that they are all really motivated to save us all from the end of the world as we know it. (weather we want to be saved or not)
SB Duffy,

So obviously you think osa is a good plan. Right. So why did you not vote that way at the last agm. Oh yeah you tried to get a secret ballot so you could do it without anyone knowing. Then when you could not get that you sat there and pouted and would not vote at all. Come on stand up for what you believe man. Are you going to the AGM this year? Hopefully you will have enough testicular fortitude to vote this time.

Bubba
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 02-11-2009, 12:25 PM
Andreas Andreas is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10
Default

so what will be the next step .........?

Government sliding into the Footsteps of old Germany ?

Landowners rent their Land exclusively year round to one or two guys for a period of 9 or 12 Years.

and next step........

So further then those solely "renters" can do their own Wildlife Management on their expense. Plant, feed in wintertime, developing habitat.

Government issue the Contract between the partys and charge both an extra fee and extra taxes above the fee.
WELCOME TO EUROPE
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 02-11-2009, 01:02 PM
Jamie Jamie is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 10,384
Default

You know guys.. I cant say right now I am for or against this plan..

BECOUSE WE DONT KNOW WHAT THE PLAN WILL BE!!!

I for one am keeping an open mind on this topic.

I would highly doubt I get any "inside" info from Ted on Saturday, but perhaps I can figure out a bit more about the proccess and see if there is any way I can be involved. My hopes arent high, but lets seewhat happens.

God help us all if we let Land owners sell tags...
YUCK!!!

Jamie
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 02-11-2009, 01:49 PM
bubbasno1
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie View Post
Bubba, you can minimize Teds acomplishments all you want. But at the end of the day, he has done more for Alberta hunters than anyone else.

You know the one thing I forgot to mention and perhaps its the most important was the fact he got the Hunting/Fishing/Trapping Heritage Act passed.

You guys are really missing the boat on this guy.

BTW the trip cost $2,165.92
How much did the Sheep tag bring in????

If you cant see the value in all that he has done.. Well I dont know what to say.
Jamie
I am not minimizing his accomplishments. I am just realistic about them. I keep hearing people say "he has done more for Alberta hunters than anyone else" well I just don't see it. You prove to me one thing he has done that sets him above all other previous Ministers and I would be happy to give him credit. So far you have given me none.

The Hunting/Fishing/Trapping Heritage Act was a program he approved but that is the extent of his involvement.

I have no clue how much the sheep tag brought in. What were the bids at before he showed up? What were they after? Hopefully it was a big enough increase to justify his trip.

I can see the value in all of this but not enough value to justify the "best SRD Minister ever" and until he gives up on paid hunting in my books he is the worst.

Bubba
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 02-11-2009, 01:59 PM
MathewsArcher MathewsArcher is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Calgary,Alberta
Posts: 1,059
Default

RECREATION ACCESS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM


INTRODUCTION

There are limited incentives for the agricultural landowner to maintain quality habitat and participate in wildlife stewardship. Access to private land is becoming more difficult, while at the same time the demand for quality hunting opportunities and access to prime fishing areas is increasing.

Privately owned agricultural lands provide significant areas of high quality habitat for wildlife and outdoor recreation, yet few tangible incentives exist for the agricultural landowner to provide or maintain quality habitat or act as wildlife stewards. In fact, these activities can have a significant financial cost and risk to the landowner. Wildlife habitat maintenance can result in increased wildlife populations and related landowner property damage (e.g. fences, crops and cultivated forage).

The use of private land by hunters and fishermen can also negatively impact the landowner (e.g. damage to property and the time required to manage this access). This has resulted in reduced access to private land, while at the same time there is an increased demand for quality hunting opportunities and access to prime fishing areas.

The University of Calgary was contracted in April 2007 to develop and propose a pilot program that would increase access to hunting and fishing on private land. As a result, the University of Calgary established the Land and Wildlife Stewardship Working Group that was comprised of members from Alberta Beef Producers, Western Stock Growers Association, Alberta Fish and Game Association, Hunting for Tomorrow Foundation, Alberta Conservation Association, the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties, Alberta Professional Outfitters Society, Alberta Agriculture and Food, Alberta Employment, Immigration and Industry and the University of Calgary. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development participated in an advisory capacity.

One of the proposals for a pilot project was the Recreational Access Management Plan (RAMP). SRD would like to proceed with a pilot program of a variation of the RAMP proposal. The following is a more specific project proposal to be taken to the public for input and discussion.

PROGRAM OVERVIEW

RAMP is modeled after the Block Management program which has been in place in the State of Montana since 1985. The Alberta program is being operated as a Pilot and is planned for WMUs 108 and 300. For 2008 the RAMP program design will be completed with criteria for contracts, management plans and evaluation. Initial landowner contacts will be done with the intent of having the program operational for 2009. It is important to have a meaningful and workable pilot program. We will not be able to develop it in time to be operational for 2008 with the current public consultation process that needs to occur. The pilot will then run for 3 years from 2009 to 2012. It is a voluntary program that will address fish habitat and fishing access during the open fishing seasons and/or wildlife habitat and hunting access during the fall hunting season. The program will offer assistance to the landowner with the booking and management of hunters and fishermen who are accessing private land. It will provide a maximum compensation of $2000. per year per section of land per landowner for hunting or fishing access and habitat retention. The type of access and the quality of the habitat provided will influence the annual maximum. Compensation will be paid at a rate of up to $20 per recreation day. Half of the compensation, up to $10, will be paid on habitat values, and half, up to $10, will be paid on access provided, with a maximum of $20 per recreation day being paid. Payment could be made by providing goods and services to landowners for habitat enhancement and improvement. The program will be operated on the basis of a contract between the landowner and government. Contracts will be developed which will lay out the conditions for operation and termination if either party desires to terminate. The contract will be for 3 years with an annual review and renewal.

PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION


The program will be implemented at the WMU level pursuant to the following guidelines and procedures.

1. Eligible lands.
• Lands which are a high priority for the program include: 1. Lands which contain high priority resource and/or habitat areas, which will be maintained or enhanced
2. Lands where a good potential exists for a long-term cooperative relationship with the landowner/landowners,
3. Lands where enrolment will result in sustained or increased hunter/fisherman access to private land,
4. Lands where access to otherwise inaccessible land will be achieved or maintain
5. Lands where enrolment will reduce other management problems (e.g. .problem wildlife)
• As demand for enrolment may exceed the program’s budgetary or administrative capacities, enrolment may be limited and prioritized on the basis of:
1. size of property, quality of habitat and recreational experience,
2. access provided to adjacent, inaccessible land,
3. creation of new access,
4. addressing wildlife damage problems,
5. the level of public access demand for the hunting and fishing opportunities offered.
• Enrolment Application and Enrolment Evaluation Forms will need to be developed. The corresponding forms for Montana’s Block Program will need only minor modifications to be applicable in Alberta.
• Applications for the enrollment of new lands or the expansion of existing lands may be made at any time. Because of the time required to negotiate a contract and the various plans and to create the necessary information packages for the overall program and individual sites, applications received after March 31 will not be implemented until the following year.



2. Access.
There are several categories of access:
• Access may be permission to cross private land along a designated route to reach Public or other land beyond the private land.
• Access may be permission to cross private land to a stream, river or lake and to fish along the shore or launch a boat.
• Access may be permission to enter and hunt game on private land.
• Access may be limited (e.g. foot access only; vehicular access may be limited to established trails).



3. Access Compensation
 The program expects free public access to harvest all legally harvestable species during the entire season for each species in accordance with an approved Access Management Plan. Lands with temporally limited access (e.g. permitting public access for 3 months of a 4 month fishing season) may be considered for inclusion in the program if, and only if all (commercial and recreational) hunting or fishing access is similarly restricted. Lands with limitations on the species harvested may also be considered for inclusion in the program if, and only if the same restrictions apply to all (commercial and recreational) users. If access restrictions are too complex or onerous, a request for inclusion in the program may be rejected.


 The sliding scale would involve:
 Access allowed  Compensation allowed
 Fishing  $2.00
 Bird Game Hunting  $2.00
 Big Game Hunting  $6.00 (reduced by percentage of species not allowed to be hunted1)
 Seasonal  Total reduced by percentage of season that access is not allowed.2
 Total Maximum  $10

 1If there is a hunting season for four big game species and the landowner does not want one species hunted then the compensation for Big Game hunting would be reduced by 25%.
 2The maximum annual compensation will be correspondingly reduced if part of the hunting season is closed for access (e.g. if the lands are available for public access during 75% of the season, the maximum compensation would be reduced by 25%.)
 Access to all or a part of a land holding may be temporarily closed to address environmental situations such as extremely wet ground conditions, fire risk, etc. or to address short-term agricultural management needs such as moving livestock without incurring a penalty. Notification would be placed on the access website.
 A process for verification of access and a system for auditing the amount of access and associated payments will be developed.

4. Access Management Plan.
An Access Management Plan will be created by the landowner in consultation with the Program Coordinator. A map will be produced that will list the access conditions and show the areas available for access.


5. Access. Who may gain access?

1. Access will be equally available to all persons who possess a WIN card and a valid hunting or fishing licence or are otherwise legally permitted to harvest the species being pursued.


6. Rules of Access. How will they be established?
• Rules of Access for individual properties and their modification will be negotiated between the Alberta Fish and Wildlife Program Coordinator and the landowner and will be enabled by the contract between the landowner and Department. The Rules may include but not be limited to:
1. restrictions on the use of vehicles
2. designated routes
3. restrictions or allowance for game retrieval
4. details about applying for access permission and registration
5. daily limits on hunter numbers and distribution as defined in the Access Management Plan
6. a mechanism to equitably distribute limited opportunities
7. dates that access is available
8. species that can be hunted
9. A designated contact person to gain access as well as the times of day the contact person can be reached.
• Rules of Access may be jointly enforced by the landowner and staff of Alberta Fish and Wildlife. Details will be negotiated between the Program Coordinator and the landowner. This agreement and its subsequent modifications will be enabled by the contract between the Department and landowner.

7. Compensation. What compensation does the landowner receive?
• RAMP will offer to assist the landowner in the management of pubic access to lands enrolled in this program. This may include operating a registration/allocation system, providing on-site sign-in boxes, producing and disseminating program and site-specific information, site supervision/patrols, etc. Details of the assistance provided to the landowner will be negotiated between the Program Coordinator and landowner. This agreement and subsequent modifications will be enabled by the Contract.
• An annual compensation payment will be made for habitat and access under the Wildlife Access and Fisheries Access components of the Program. The compensation will be based on the number of user access days under each program and a daily rate which is based on the habitat quality of the enrolled land. An annual maximum of $2000. per section of land will be paid. This limit will be decreased for each program component as described in Point 3 (above) in response to limitations posed by the landowner on the length of time that access is available or restrictions on the species which can be harvested.
• The daily compensation rate for hunting and fishing on enrolled land will range up to $10. per day based on habitat value. Habitat value will be assessed using methods which are specific to the habitats in the project area. Most of the habitat value for ungulates and bird game in WMUs 108 and 300 is provided by native prairie and the associated coulee complexes. The Alberta Public Lands Range Health Assessment System will be used to assess the health of the native prairie and this rating will be accepted as an assessment of upland habitat quality in these WMUs. If there are significant waterfowl habitats on the enrolled lands their value will be assessed using the Alberta Public Lands Riparian Health Assessment for Lakes Sloughs and Wetlands and where fishing access is allowed the streams will be assessed using the Riparian Health Assessment for Streams and Small Rivers. In a multi habitat landbase, a weighted average between this value and the upland value will be calculated. This will be the compensation rate in dollars for each hunter access day.
.


• The sliding scale for compensation on upland habitat values will be:


Range Health Assessment Score Range Health Percentage Compensation
30 50% $2
36 60% $4
42 70% $6
45 75% $8
48+ 80%+ $10

• The sliding scale for compensation on riparian habitat values will be:


Riparian Health Assessment Score Range Health Percentage Compensation
34/57 60% $2
37/57 65% $4
40/57 70% $6
46/57 80% $8
52/57 91% $10



8. Information Dissemination.
• The Program Coordinator will be the program’s advocate in the local community. The Coordinator will provide and disseminate information to the public about the program, which landowners are involved and how to access these lands for hunting and fishing. The coordinator will also provide site-specific information to the landowner (for his distribution) and to the users who are registered to access a particular parcel of land. This information package will show the boundaries of the property and present the rules of access and a strong use respect message. The information package will be posted on the SRD Public Lands Website for recreational access to public land
(http://srd.alberta.ca/lands/usingpub...d/default.aspx). Contact information and times that access coordinators can be contacted will be listed to enable ease of obtaining access.




9. Contract.
• A standard contract form for the Program will be required. The Montana Block Program contract will provide some guidance. It will require significant modification due to differences between the Canadian and American legal systems and the respective programs.

10. Evaluation:
• The primary criteria for the evaluation of RAMP are landowner and sportsman satisfaction
• The program will be informally evaluated after the each year of operation
The University of Calgary will be designing and conducting the formal pilot project evaluation.
• Formal evaluations will occur at the end the third year

8/27/2008




Can't imagine the program will be much different than what was drafted in August of 08 given the speed governement moves at times.
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 02-11-2009, 02:19 PM
outlaw'd's Avatar
outlaw'd outlaw'd is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Westlock, Ab
Posts: 530
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by duffy4 View Post
Often when I see a "hot topic" that is gaining a lot of posts I'll click on the number of posts and it gives a break down of who is posting and how many times.

This is a really hot topic of concern to many. Well not really so "many".

Of the 99 posts there are three members who have posted 11 times each that is 33 of the 99.

The first 7 posters are responcible for 55 of the 99 posts.

So again there is a very vocal minority who are making it appear as if this is a really hot topic.

I know that they are all really motivated to save us all from the end of the world as we know it. (weather we want to be saved or not)

#1 - where is the vocal majority that want this crap pushed through? Why aren't they posting? I think, and it's just an opinion, that there may be a non vocal minority for this project that feel they may come out ahead of everyone.
#2 - I also think that I liked it better when your signature read " duffy down under ". Then I wouldn't be so concerned with having to save you, and I could focus more on trying to prevent hunting as we currently know it to remain unchanged.
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 02-11-2009, 02:41 PM
Bulletproof Bulletproof is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 183
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steamer08 View Post
If any of you think that we do not have paid hunting in our province right now, you really need to pull your heads out. There are ranchers and other landowners who only allow outfitters on their property. Do you think this is because the outfitters are just really nice guys. NO, it is because the landowners are receiving kickbacks from the outfitters. Do you think that years back Jackie Bushman paid the same as the next hunter for the huge whitetail he shot on the Majestic ranch at Buffalo. I'm sure the outfitter charged him appropriately for this buck they had set aside for him. And I am sure Majestic gets a kickback for only allowing the outftter access to this land. This not only goes on in big game hunting but also for bird hunting. The real problem for bird hunting is there is no need for outfitters, so the hunters can pay the landowners themselves. No paper trail.

I feel that as long as the government maintains their focus on this project and does not allow landowners the legal right to obtain monies themselves from hunters this program could work. It would need to be set up in a way that if a landowner opts into this program they cannot deny anyone who pays the $20.00 access. This way it would not just be friends and outfitters getting the access to line their pockets. Those of you who think $20.00 is to much for a day of hunting need to realize how much the land they are hunting on is worth.

I do beleive the reason for WMU 108 is because of the McIntyre and Knight ranches. I have moved drilling rigs into these places and I sh@t you not, you should see how many deer are there. I personally would love the oppotunity to bag a monster muley there.

Let's not forget that hunting has probably denied in the first place because of some unethical disrespectfull hunters in the past. It may not be the case here, but most posted land is the result of these actions. This program will not work and no one will ever have access again is this crap keeps going on. These ranches and other landowners will not see this a cash cow and opt out as quickly as they opted in.

And if any of you out there feel that there should be free access to all land because we all own the wildlife on it should really move to a peoples republic. Then the government owns all the land and you can have a free for all. As for me, I love our democratic way of life which includes free enterprise and personal ownership of property. It doesn't matter if we own a lot and house in Calgary or a 4 township ranch, the fact is we OWN it and get to decide for ourselves who or what we let on. The exception being denying access to oil companies who OWN the rights underground.

I feel that if this program is implemented properly (which it probably won't because it is a government program) it could be very beneficial to ALL Albertans to hunt places where we previously couldn't.
Steamer,

I dont think that anyone is going to disagree with your first argument about illegal paid hunting.

But do you honestly think that the big nonhunting ranches in 108 are going to change? I know that may have been the intent at the very beginning but I think that last year during all the OSA talk the McIntyre already said that they would not be taking part in the new programs. Other big ranches like the Deseret that were going to take part were in it for the landowner tags. The smaller ranchers who wouldnt have qualified for the landowner tags arent really the ones that this program was intending to target.

Now that just the RAMP portion is going forward what makes you think that the big ranches will still take part?

I agree with those who say this is only the tip of the iceberg and that it seems like if anything goes forward it will only lead to paid-hunting in the future because that is what the big players wanted from the start. It seems like they just want to get a foot in the door and work their way up from there.

I hope I am wrong.

Brett
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 02-11-2009, 03:30 PM
clarki clarki is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 467
Default

can anyone tell me why i cant hunt on sundays in 108???

M
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 02-11-2009, 03:31 PM
Steamer08 Steamer08 is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 35
Default

Hey Brett,

I'm not saying that any of these ranches will get on board, but with a good program in place there is always that potential. Without some incentive to these ranches, no Albertan will ever get the possible chance to hunt on these properties. I know that everyone believes that if we start by doing this it will lead to disaster in the end. It may and it may not. There will always be the fear mongers out there. Like I said in my earlier post, I believe this can work IF the government keeps their focus where it should be and this being a responsible Recreation Access Management Program. Like I also said, this is government and it could get f#*@ed up in a big hurry.
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 02-11-2009, 03:34 PM
rae61 rae61 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 140
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steamer08 View Post
If any of you think that we do not have paid hunting in our province right now, you really need to pull your heads out. There are ranchers and other landowners who only allow outfitters on their property. Do you think this is because the outfitters are just really nice guys. NO, it is because the landowners are receiving kickbacks from the outfitters. Do you think that years back Jackie Bushman paid the same as the next hunter for the huge whitetail he shot on the Majestic ranch at Buffalo. I'm sure the outfitter charged him appropriately for this buck they had set aside for him. And I am sure Majestic gets a kickback for only allowing the outftter access to this land. This not only goes on in big game hunting but also for bird hunting. The real problem for bird hunting is there is no need for outfitters, so the hunters can pay the landowners themselves. No paper trail.

I feel that as long as the government maintains their focus on this project and does not allow landowners the legal right to obtain monies themselves from hunters this program could work. It would need to be set up in a way that if a landowner opts into this program they cannot deny anyone who pays the $20.00 access. This way it would not just be friends and outfitters getting the access to line their pockets. Those of you who think $20.00 is to much for a day of hunting need to realize how much the land they are hunting on is worth.

I do beleive the reason for WMU 108 is because of the McIntyre and Knight ranches. I have moved drilling rigs into these places and I sh@t you not, you should see how many deer are there. I personally would love the oppotunity to bag a monster muley there.

Let's not forget that hunting has probably denied in the first place because of some unethical disrespectfull hunters in the past. It may not be the case here, but most posted land is the result of these actions. This program will not work and no one will ever have access again is this crap keeps going on. These ranches and other landowners will not see this a cash cow and opt out as quickly as they opted in.

And if any of you out there feel that there should be free access to all land because we all own the wildlife on it should really move to a peoples republic. Then the government owns all the land and you can have a free for all. As for me, I love our democratic way of life which includes free enterprise and personal ownership of property. It doesn't matter if we own a lot and house in Calgary or a 4 township ranch, the fact is we OWN it and get to decide for ourselves who or what we let on. The exception being denying access to oil companies who OWN the rights underground.

I feel that if this program is implemented properly (which it probably won't because it is a government program) it could be very beneficial to ALL Albertans to hunt places where we previously couldn't.
I agree that paid access by outfitters happens and it is a BIG problem for resident hunters and we need to stop this. I don't see how legal paid access for resident hunters will make this better.

What landowner would give up his right to control access for $20 a head. I understand why landowners want to manage the number of hunters on their land. So don’t fool yourself
into thinking with this program you will have access anytime you want to any of the participating ranches.


Why is it that there is no hunting allowed on the McIntyre and Knight ranches now?? I don't think these large operations need the money, do you think that a mere 5 -10 K a year will make them open their gates to hunters. If they do there will have to be more in it for them than $20 a head.

I don't think I have a right to access any private land for any reason with out permission but the wildlife is owned by all the people of Alberta and owning the land does not change that and never should.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.