Paid Hunting

[Pudelpointer]

A couple quick comments:

First, elk are native to the grasslands, and belong on the landscape.

Second, the vast majority of the land immediately surrounding CFB Suffield is grazing lease lands (Crown lands, as in Public Lands).

Third, comments on the SSRP close on January 15.

[Flatlandliver]

Originally Posted by Pudelpointer

A couple quick comments:

First, elk are native to the grasslands, and belong on the landscape.

Second, the vast majority of the land immediately surrounding CFB Suffield is grazing lease lands (Crown lands, as in Public Lands).

Third, comments on the SSRP close on January 15.

Right you are on all points, remembering that most if not all of the grazing leases have some condition or another for recreational access including contacting the leaseholder. That and it's just the right thing to do.
Happy Holidays to all

[H380]

Originally Posted by bobalong

Possibly, but the area I hunt the hutterites are very obliging to the hunters, for goose hunting anyway. They have actually phoned us to come hunt their land. This is for land that is still in swath usually, so you have to carry your gear in, but we have had some great opening season hunts on their land.

Yes they are quite obliging to hunters , but I'll tell you , there is no one and I repeat no one that worships a dollar more than them . Take a look at how much habitat they leave .. Fences removed and plowed up to road edges , sloughs and coulees burned out , even if they are unfarmable . I have good friends that are colony members , but the bunch as a whole show very little respect for wildlife .

[H380]

Originally Posted by Pudelpointer

A couple quick comments:

First, elk are native to the grasslands, and belong on the landscape.

Second, the vast majority of the land immediately surrounding CFB Suffield is grazing lease lands (Crown lands, as in Public Lands).

Third, comments on the SSRP close on January 15.

Yes they belong , but only to a limited extent .. Buffalo were here too , do you want them back by the thousands ? How about the grizzly ? Should prairie ranchers and farmers put up with them too ? Where does it end ?

[IR_mike]

Originally Posted by H380

Yes they belong , but only to a limited extent .. Buffalo were here too , do you want them back by the thousands ? How about the grizzly ? Should prairie ranchers and farmers put up with them too ? Where does it end ?

With the natural expansion of elk in the province they would have made it to suffield anyways.

Reintroduceing them in the 90's just sped it up 20-30 years.

Woods bison should be reintroduced to the green areas of the province as its more or less open season outside of a few areas already.

With no G bear season they will be back in their former ranges soon enough.

[OpenRange]

I'd like to see Either Sex species landowner tags for all WMU's immediately outside the Base. I'd also like to see these tag be eligible year round. With all the owners tags around there plus the hunt on base and off, that's quite a bunch of tags. I know you will all complain about the year round idea for a landowner and why is that fair, my view is that I don't go looking for an elk to shoot, if one comes across my place when I'm out going through cows and I decide I wanna take it then great. There would be some guys who go out just like every other hunter on opening day and take there chances, but it just gives guys the option. Right now I can get a landowners cow but not a bull, but all I see running around on my place are immature bulls that get pushed out in the rut. I like cutting down the cow numbers because it takes 2 or more out of the herd, but on the other hand a bull or cow elk eats the same and both need to be reduced. So what's the big deal if 100 landowners or so get either sex, year round tags?

[IR_mike]

Originally Posted by OpenRange

I'd like to see Either Sex species landowner tags for all WMU's immediately outside the Base. I'd also like to see these tag be eligible year round. With all the owners tags around there plus the hunt on base and off, that's quite a bunch of tags. I know you will all complain about the year round idea for a landowner and why is that fair, my view is that I don't go looking for an elk to shoot, if one comes across my place when I'm out going through cows and I decide I wanna take it then great. There would be some guys who go out just like every other hunter on opening day and take there chances, but it just gives guys the option. Right now I can get a landowners cow but not a bull, but all I see running around on my place are immature bulls that get pushed out in the rut. I like cutting down the cow numbers because it takes 2 or more out of the herd, but on the other hand a bull or cow elk eats the same and both need to be reduced. So what's the big deal if 100 landowners or so get either sex, year round tags?

F and W have been tossing around the idea for year round either sex landowner tags for a while.

[JRsMav]

Originally Posted by bobalong

Carry on with the bash, when more and more land gets closed and "paid access" starts creeping in, and you start looking frantically for someone to blame..........just look in the mirror.

Bob Im not sure why you take such instant exception when a thread about paid hunting pops up. Theres no reason to be sour about discussion whatsoever.

Also, you and I both frequent another forum, and I can tell you without a doubt the area you frequent would be one of the first to be swollen with landowners charging an arm and a leg for access, and hunters with deep pockets willing to pay it. I know this because I own land in your area. Im struggling figuring out why you seem to personally take exception to this? As a landowner I don't feel the need to have my behind powdered by the guys that hunt it.

[H380]

Originally Posted by IR_mike

With the natural expansion of elk in the province they would have made it to suffield anyways.

Reintroduceing them in the 90's just sped it up 20-30 years.

Woods bison should be reintroduced to the green areas of the province as its more or less open season outside of a few areas already.

With no G bear season they will be back in their former ranges soon enough.

I have nothing against the elk in Suffield , it's better than the horses . As for G bears , they are present a long ways from the mountains already . Yes I know prairies were originally part of their habitat , but I know guys that don't dare try to fill grain bins after dark in the fall cause they can't see or hear the bears that cruise around the area . That's just wrong . Not saying that all bears need to be shot , but there are a few that need to learn some respect .

[J.B.]

Filled out the work book this aft...cant see many ppl going through the effort it takes to read and comprehend that entire fuster cluck...that being said I do like the fact that effort is being made to conserve natural areas, just at what cost to the average albertan? And at what cost to consumptive users who are clearly a minority in society?

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by V_1

W.B. I'd appreciate if you save fellow outdoorsmen sifting through legalese and point out where exactly the draft is saying about
paid hunting part

Sure, and I'd appreciate if you and all other hunters fill out the workbook.
It takes a bit of time but that is of no concern to those who care for the future of Resident hunting. As mentioned by Salamander, the wording in the Draft is quite vague compared to the Recommendation that lead to this draft.





Advice to the Government of Alberta for the South Saskatchewan Regional Plan
https://www.landuse.alberta.ca/LandU...%202011-03.pdf

5.3 Biodiversity

5.3.14.2

Respect private property rights by developing a suite of conservation and stewardship tools (e.g., economic and market-based incentives, conservation easements, transferable development credits, mitigation banking and paid access for hunting) that can be voluntarily used by landowners and disposition holders to help sustain biodiversity.

------------

Here are the concerning sections in the SSRP Draft.





Draft South Saskatchewan Regional Plan 2014 – 2024


Strategies:
a) Complete the South Saskatchewan Biodiversity Management
Framework by the end of 2014. (See Appendix F – Overview of
Biodiversity Management Framework.)

The biodiversity management framework is a new approach to support cumulative effects management of important elements of biodiversity that are affected by land uses in the region. It is not intended to address all aspects of biodiversity.

The framework will focus on indicators based on key species that represent the broad range of biodiversity in the region, important habitats where specific direction is provided in recovery plans (e.g., grizzly bears); and maintaining key landscapes (protection of headwaters, retaining existing intact public land grassland areas) important to sustaining long-term ecosystem health.

Biodiversity targets for these selected indicators will provide guidance for decisions about future and existing land-use activities.
The framework will also provide guidance for integrated management approaches on public lands. While the objectives set in the framework will apply to the entire region (including private lands) it is recognized that any actions by landowners towards meeting objectives is voluntary and subject to availability and landowner interest to use tools such as conservation easements and other mechanisms described in the next section on Stewardship and Conservation on Private Lands. The biodiversity management framework will be implemented to add to and complement, not replace or duplicate, existing policies, legislation, regulations and management tools.

Monitoring of the indicators will be through the Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute and other finer scale monitoring by the Government of Alberta and partners. By focusing on management actions for these indicators, it is expected that other indicators of biodiversity will benefit. Monitoring will be essential to validate this assumption.



Stewardship and Conservation on Private Lands
Objectives:
• The contributions of landowners for their stewardship and conservation
efforts on private lands are recognized.
• The contribution and value of private land in supplying ecosystem
services is recognized, and opportunities to support ecosystem services
on private land are identified.
• The value of ecosystem services supplied by economic sectors reliant on
private lands is recognized.

Strategies:

a) Encourage and support the continued stewardship of Alberta’s private
lands through the development and piloting of regionally appropriate
conservation tools. These tools may include exploring market-based
options, voluntary conservation easements, and the provision of other
government and/or private sector incentives that assist in achieving
environmental outcomes. This will be done within the provincial approach
for management of ecosystem services.

• Acknowledge the voluntary contributions of private land owners in
enhancing ecosystem services. Assess opportunities for achieving
greater regional biodiversity on private agricultural lands through the
development of new and/or expanded voluntary partnerships with
private landowners.

• Consider pilot studies with the goal of assisting development of a
voluntary, privately operated, market-based system for ecosystem
services valuation and payment.

• Encourage local authorities or qualified organizations to explore the
applicability and use of voluntary stewardship and conservation tools
on private lands including conservation easements, conservation
off-set programs and transfer of development credit schemes.

• Explore innovative funding mechanisms to support stewardship and
conservation on private lands.

[igorot]

Originally Posted by JRsMav

Bob Im not sure why you take such instant exception when a thread about paid hunting pops up. Theres no reason to be sour about discussion whatsoever.

Also, you and I both frequent another forum, and I can tell you without a doubt the area you frequent would be one of the first to be swollen with landowners charging an arm and a leg for access, and hunters with deep pockets willing to pay it. I know this because I own land in your area. Im struggling figuring out why you seem to personally take exception to this? As a landowner I don't feel the need to have my behind powdered by the guys that hunt it.

Its called greed and fear as long as I have mine who cares about the others. Fear of being kick out on their comfort zone.

[bobalong]

Originally Posted by igorot

Its called greed and fear as long as I have mine who cares about the others. Fear of being kick out on their comfort zone.

Greed, LOL, shows what happens when people comment on things they know nothing about. FYI, I have tagged one deer in the last nine years, have not put in for a draw for over ten years.

[waterfowler1969]

Originally Posted by OpenRange

I'd like to see Either Sex species landowner tags for all WMU's immediately outside the Base. I'd also like to see these tag be eligible year round. With all the owners tags around there plus the hunt on base and off, that's quite a bunch of tags. I know you will all complain about the year round idea for a landowner and why is that fair, my view is that I don't go looking for an elk to shoot, if one comes across my place when I'm out going through cows and I decide I wanna take it then great. There would be some guys who go out just like every other hunter on opening day and take there chances, but it just gives guys the option. Right now I can get a landowners cow but not a bull, but all I see running around on my place are immature bulls that get pushed out in the rut. I like cutting down the cow numbers because it takes 2 or more out of the herd, but on the other hand a bull or cow elk eats the same and both need to be reduced. So what's the big deal if 100 landowners or so get either sex, year round tags?

Disagree with all landowner tags all around on all animals. Why should anybody be any different than the others. Wait your turn like everybody else including Indians.

[igorot]

Originally Posted by bobalong

Greed, LOL, shows what happens when people comment on things they know nothing about. FYI, I have tagged one deer in the last nine years, have not put in for a draw for over ten years.

Agreed and I thought were are talking about paid hunting and access. Not on someone harvest and draws. . Nope not going to kiss somebodies ass just to satisfy my greed. Merry Christmas

[walking buffalo]

While there are many proponents of Paid access simply to make a profit from hunting, whether or not that land provides wildlife habitat or if wildlife causes any loss through crop depredation....


Many are missing one of the important reasons behind providing a supplemental income to private landowners to maintain wildlife habitat.


Many landowners are faced with maximizing production in order to keep their operation viable, resulting in a loss of wildlife habitat.


I suggest that we all need to promote a solution where everybody wins, hunters/landowners and wildlife, without allowing paid access for hunting.


A potential solution where ALL Alberta citizens would share equally in helping maintain wildlife habitat on private land is to create a tax credit for Landowners that maintain wildlife habitat. Many jurisdiction in the US follow this regime with successful results, We need to do the same thing here.


NO to Paid Access for hunting, YES to tax credits for Landowners who maintain wildlife habitat!

[Don K]

Originally Posted by waterfowler1969

Disagree with all landowner tags all around on all animals. Why should anybody be any different than the others. Wait your turn like everybody else including Indians.

You're such a hard azz! Landowners should benefit a wee little bit... Not year round and I agree with you on the Indian bit.

Merry Xmas too!

[trophyboy]

Newsflash people, Paid Hunting is inevitable. It's just a matter of time before it happens. For now enjoy it while you can!

[landowner]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

While there are many proponents of Paid access simply to make a profit from hunting, whether or not that land provides wildlife habitat or if wildlife causes any loss through crop depredation....


Many are missing one of the important reasons behind providing a supplemental income to private landowners to maintain wildlife habitat.


Many landowners are faced with maximizing production in order to keep their operation viable, resulting in a loss of wildlife habitat.


I suggest that we all need to promote a solution where everybody wins, hunters/landowners and wildlife, without allowing paid access for hunting.


A potential solution where ALL Alberta citizens would share equally in helping maintain wildlife habitat on private land is to create a tax credit for Landowners that maintain wildlife habitat. Many jurisdiction in the US follow this regime with successful results, We need to do the same thing here.


NO to Paid Access for hunting, YES to tax credits for Landowners who maintain wildlife habitat!

You kind of said it there with your comment about viable operations. Many landowners don't need a tax break if their operation isn't making a profit. That's why they want paid access , to finally show a profit. I believe the red tape and government jobs invented to decide about habitat would make tax credits a political nightmare. Let the free market decide, if you maintain proper habitat more game will arrive and so would more hunters seeking access. Many jurisdictions also support paid access and operations hire their own biologists to improve habitat. I appreciate that you want to help landowners with a positive solution , I just think the government would find a way to really screw it up.

[missingtwo]

Originally Posted by landowner

You kind of said it there with your comment about viable operations. Many landowners don't need a tax break if their operation isn't making a profit. That's why they want paid access , to finally show a profit. I believe the red tape and government jobs invented to decide about habitat would make tax credits a political nightmare. Let the free market decide, if you maintain proper habitat more game will arrive and so would more hunters seeking access. Many jurisdictions also support paid access and operations hire their own biologists to improve habitat. I appreciate that you want to help landowners with a positive solution , I just think the government would find a way to really screw it up.

Maybe, if the landowners can't make a profit off the land that they purchased, they should find another form of income. Other than off the wildlife that were part of the parcel. One idea may be invite hunters in to control wildlife during open seasons, gopher shooting during the summer, hiking etc. Maybe even pay hunters to "photograph" them all year. Or would that be considered harassment.
Many landowners don't need MORE tax breaks. If a landowner needs paid hunting to "show a profit" he's in bigger trouble than a few elk or deer on his land.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by landowner

You kind of said it there with your comment about viable operations. Many landowners don't need a tax break if their operation isn't making a profit. That's why they want paid access , to finally show a profit. I believe the red tape and government jobs invented to decide about habitat would make tax credits a political nightmare. Let the free market decide, if you maintain proper habitat more game will arrive and so would more hunters seeking access. Many jurisdictions also support paid access and operations hire their own biologists to improve habitat. I appreciate that you want to help landowners with a positive solution , I just think the government would find a way to really screw it up.

So you are suggesting many Landowners desire that Wildlife, which is held in trust by the Crown to belong to ALL people, should be commercialized for the sake of those Landowners that can not make ends meet through agricultural operations, and that Hunters should be singled out and targeted as the source of this income....


Wildlife does not belong in the Free Market, this decision was made during the formation of Canada,. Wildlife belongs to the people and shall be considered Priceless (The North American Model of Wildlife Management).

[missingtwo]

Originally Posted by trophyboy

Newsflash people, Paid Hunting is inevitable. It's just a matter of time before it happens. For now enjoy it while you can!

Ummmmm........ newsflash. We already pay to hunt. Through licensing, draws, equipment, gas , food, lodging, etc.
The thing is, nobody should profit off the wildlife on their land. Or other peoples land. (read outfitters). And if outdoors people don't back down, it will be a cold day in hell before "paid hunting" happens.

[landowner]

That's true, wildlife does belong to the people. What landowners want is to be able to charge for the ACCESS. Just like they can charge for access for photographs, berry picking, hiking, as well as gas and oil. Everything but hunting access is legal. Its not paid hunting that landowners want, they want the ability to charge like every other activity in Alberta. I know this statement will get blasted, and so be it. Landowners with prime hunting habitat want a level playing field.One that can be compared to other industries in Alberta.

[waterfowler1969]

Originally Posted by landowner

That's true, wildlife does belong to the people. What landowners want is to be able to charge for the ACCESS. Just like they can charge for access for photographs, berry picking, hiking, as well as gas and oil. Everything but hunting access is legal. Its not paid hunting that landowners want, they want the ability to charge like every other activity in Alberta. I know this statement will get blasted, and so be it. Landowners with prime hunting habitat want a level playing field.One that can be compared to other industries in Alberta.

Ya well you should not be aloud to charge for any of that. It is funny how most that want this got there land handed to them from there family. If you don't allow hunting fine, but if you want to charge for access you should be charged big time.

[whitetail Junkie]

Thank god Canada is nothing like the states in regards to paid hunting....plus all the crown land out here we have!

Aswell a big thanks to alot of Generous Farmers out there who give the permission for the people that respect the land.

[waterfowler1969]

Originally Posted by whitetail Junkie

Thank god Canada is nothing like the states in regards to paid hunting....plus all the crown land out here we have!

Aswell a big thanks to alot of Generous Farmers out there who give the permission for the people that respect the land.

To bad all the greedy landowners will get it changed so You have to pay $10,000 to get you whitetail next couple years. Only in Alberta.

[TBark]

Curious...
Wonder how many landowners are Outfitters, or how many that just have a guiding license, and sign on with an Oufitter ?
Likely a legal way for paid access to their land.

TBark

[whitetail Junkie]

Originally Posted by waterfowler1969

To bad all the greedy landowners will get it changed so You have to pay $10,000 to get you whitetail next couple years. Only in Alberta.

Hopefully it does'nt ever come to that.....There are for sure selfish people out there too.

Lots of people wont pay a dime to hunt,myself included.

[waterfowler1969]

Originally Posted by whitetail Junkie

Hopefully it does'nt ever come to that.....There are for sure selfish people out there too.

Lots of people wont pay a dime to hunt,myself included.

Me either. I just don't agree with it on either side.

Originally Posted by TBark

Curious...
Wonder how many landowners are Outfitters, or how many that just have a guiding license, and sign on with an Oufitter ?
Likely a legal way for paid access to their land.

TBark

That is a joke and should be brought up to get changed. To much of that crap going on already.

[AtimoseMan]

I am a land owner and agree that we should be able to charge for hunting rights on our land.In the past guides used my property and charge $6500.00 for there guided white tail hunts and I never received a penny.It was sure nice to have an alfalfa field to hunt at 100% at my expense. I asked hunters to help and earn the hunting privileges and I was laughed at!! Well now I'm going to have the last laugh now!! My farm is a registered business and hunting on it is going to come with a price. How many of you on this site have businesses and give stuff for free.I sure don't get a free tire repair or a free power bill,why should you get to use my land for free when I pay for all my farm expenses and nurture the land.I keep a very rich ecosystem and habitat for the wildlife.No cattle grazing and insecticide sprays allowed. My biggest thing is I farm with wildlife and very strong in protecting there habitat!!!! In reading alot of the posts in this site is everyone is only focused on the deer,what about the ladybugs,bees and natural plants that are disappearing at alarming rates. Remember a healthy ecosystem is the most important thing and the wildlife will come.