Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Hunting Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 01-18-2018, 08:19 PM
Norwest Alta Norwest Alta is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 3,666
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by landowner View Post
I've had predator claims , believe me it's not that easy to get paid. I believe one of the reasons that the government has this plan , is to Try and curb the sss mentality. If ranchers are expected to absorb the constant loss from the publics predators, they would be taking care of the problem themselves a lot more. Personally I say get rid of it , but let me deal with all bears and wolves my way. No more payments, no more predator problems , win win.
X2
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 01-18-2018, 08:59 PM
LKILR's Avatar
LKILR LKILR is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Claresholm
Posts: 1,070
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by landowner View Post
I've had predator claims , believe me it's not that easy to get paid. I believe one of the reasons that the government has this plan , is to Try and curb the sss mentality. If ranchers are expected to absorb the constant loss from the publics predators, they would be taking care of the problem themselves a lot more. Personally I say get rid of it , but let me deal with all bears and wolves my way. No more payments, no more predator problems , win win.
I’m on with your philosophy so long as it’s on your own deeded land. Livestock left unattended on public land is subject to predatory loss if left unchecked. You just can’t go shooting all the bears and wolves and cougars just cuz if fits your agenda.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 01-18-2018, 09:58 PM
Smokinyotes Smokinyotes is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: onoway, Ab
Posts: 6,956
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LKILR View Post
I’m on with your philosophy so long as it’s on your own deeded land. Livestock left unattended on public land is subject to predatory loss if left unchecked. You just can’t go shooting all the bears and wolves and cougars just cuz if fits your agenda.
Maybe not but the fewer wolves bears and cats the higher the survival rate for calves and fawns which means lower draw priorities.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 01-18-2018, 10:02 PM
Bub Bub is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 1,392
Default

It ain't just about the lower draw priorities though.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 01-19-2018, 06:03 AM
landowner landowner is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 975
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LKILR View Post
I’m on with your philosophy so long as it’s on your own deeded land. Livestock left unattended on public land is subject to predatory loss if left unchecked. You just can’t go shooting all the bears and wolves and cougars just cuz if fits your agenda.
What about livestock on public land that is regularly checked ? What if my agenda is to kill only habitual known killers ? Some bears don't kill livestock and if a big boar , he will keep new bears out of the area. Don't want to lose those types. Wolves now that's a different story.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 01-19-2018, 06:55 AM
LKILR's Avatar
LKILR LKILR is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Claresholm
Posts: 1,070
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by landowner View Post
What about livestock on public land that is regularly checked ? What if my agenda is to kill only habitual known killers ? Some bears don't kill livestock and if a big boar , he will keep new bears out of the area. Don't want to lose those types. Wolves now that's a different story.
Like I said “if left unchecked”. If your actually checking your livestock regularly then you’ll know if said predator killed the livestock or just scavenger. You can legally hunt wolves on public land from Sept to June so I say shootem all. I help my cousin and uncle check their cattle in the forestry this summer. We try and get out to look at least two time a week. All horseback. We found a cow that had been attacked by what we think is a grizzly bear. She was able to get away with puncture wounds around the neck area. We took her to a vet and saved her. Another rancher lost a yearling to what we think is the same bear.evidence shows that the bear has a strategy. Seems to approach the herd on severe side hill and then chase them down hoping for one to trip or fall then the attack occurs.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 01-19-2018, 07:00 AM
LKILR's Avatar
LKILR LKILR is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Claresholm
Posts: 1,070
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokinyotes View Post
Maybe not but the fewer wolves bears and cats the higher the survival rate for calves and fawns which means lower draw priorities.
So would the reduction of supplemental tags and anterless tags. Your philosophy is fueled by self greed.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 01-19-2018, 07:50 AM
Brian Bildson Brian Bildson is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,107
Default

I put this on another thread

"As for the $400,000 that ACA is FORCED to pay into the predator compensation fund I'd suggest that Alberta hunters should contact their MLA and ask that the compensation program be administered by Alberta agriculture where it belongs.

There is no ceiling on what ACA is forced to pay, as the agreement is tied to actual claims every year. The ACA agreement provides approx. 50% of the payments but in truth pays 100% of claims and then waits for repayment of 50% back from government, which often is a year or more in arrears.

The premise behind this deal structure is that land owners will support wildlife populations on their land if they know they'll be compensated by government for losses. Supposedly leading to more game and access for hunters. Anyone think that's working?

In practice more like access to farmers hunting buddies, not joe public. And most of these claims are on cattle leases which is crown land that is owned by the public. A rancher sticks livestock on what used to be ungulate habitat and then complains that there's predators on it? They should look at that as the cost of doing business on public land that comes at very little cost to them. Take a lot of dead cows to equal what they'd have to pay to put those cows on purchased land.

Lets put this program into the hands of agricultural and use the funds to do more for the WIN card holders of Alberta."
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 01-19-2018, 09:42 AM
Big Grey Wolf Big Grey Wolf is online now
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 6,230
Default

Brian, such wisdom from such a young trapper, well said!!
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 01-19-2018, 09:48 AM
Dr.D Dr.D is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: crossfield
Posts: 375
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brian bildson View Post
i put this on another thread

"as for the $400,000 that aca is forced to pay into the predator compensation fund i'd suggest that alberta hunters should contact their mla and ask that the compensation program be administered by alberta agriculture where it belongs.

There is no ceiling on what aca is forced to pay, as the agreement is tied to actual claims every year. The aca agreement provides approx. 50% of the payments but in truth pays 100% of claims and then waits for repayment of 50% back from government, which often is a year or more in arrears.

The premise behind this deal structure is that land owners will support wildlife populations on their land if they know they'll be compensated by government for losses. Supposedly leading to more game and access for hunters. Anyone think that's working?

In practice more like access to farmers hunting buddies, not joe public. And most of these claims are on cattle leases which is crown land that is owned by the public. A rancher sticks livestock on what used to be ungulate habitat and then complains that there's predators on it? They should look at that as the cost of doing business on public land that comes at very little cost to them. Take a lot of dead cows to equal what they'd have to pay to put those cows on purchased land.

Lets put this program into the hands of agricultural and use the funds to do more for the win card holders of alberta."
. X2
x
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 01-19-2018, 09:51 AM
Joe Black Joe Black is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 997
Default

had no response to my question regarding responsibility of dead livestock removal so found out myself. enclosed.

PS disposal by scavenging is allowed under strict conditions(in this case the conditions were breached) and is considered the highest risk for spread of disease/contamination et.


DISPOSAL OF DEAD ANIMALS
Owner’s duties
3(1) The owner of a dead animal shall dispose of the dead animal in accordance with this Regulation.
(2) In storing or disposing of a dead animal, the owner of the dead animal shall ensure that
(a) the odours generated by the dead animal are minimized,
(b) any run-on or run-off water at the site where the dead animal is located is minimized,
(c) the risk of the spread of disease is minimized, and
(d) the dead animal does not create a nuisance.
(3) The owner of a dead animal shall dispose of the dead animal within 7 days unless the owner stores
the dead animal
(a) outside during winter months when the ambient temperature is low enough to keep the dead
animal completely frozen,
(b) in a freezer unit, or
(c) in accordance with the directions of the chief provincial veterinarian, an inspector appointed
under section 6(2) of the Act or a veterinary inspector appointed under the Health of Animals
Act (Canada).
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 01-19-2018, 10:44 AM
AlbertaBuck's Avatar
AlbertaBuck AlbertaBuck is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: wmu 250
Posts: 90
Default Predators

I know first hand what 30 wolves will do to cow calf pairs in the spring...been there done that.
The thing I get a kick out of is how many whitetails and game animals are harvested every year under the "I'm a conservationist" mind set.
Yet you don't spend a dime killing a predator to add some balance to the downhill slide we're having in game management.
Personally I'd rather pay a rancher for lost cattle than pay for the idiot we have floating this country.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 01-19-2018, 06:58 PM
landowner landowner is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 975
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bildson View Post
I put this on another thread

"As for the $400,000 that ACA is FORCED to pay into the predator compensation fund I'd suggest that Alberta hunters should contact their MLA and ask that the compensation program be administered by Alberta agriculture where it belongs.

There is no ceiling on what ACA is forced to pay, as the agreement is tied to actual claims every year. The ACA agreement provides approx. 50% of the payments but in truth pays 100% of claims and then waits for repayment of 50% back from government, which often is a year or more in arrears.

The premise behind this deal structure is that land owners will support wildlife populations on their land if they know they'll be compensated by government for losses. Supposedly leading to more game and access for hunters. Anyone think that's working?

In practice more like access to farmers hunting buddies, not joe public. And most of these claims are on cattle leases which is crown land that is owned by the public. A rancher sticks livestock on what used to be ungulate habitat and then complains that there's predators on it? They should look at that as the cost of doing business on public land that comes at very little cost to them. Take a lot of dead cows to equal what they'd have to pay to put those cows on purchased land.

Lets put this program into the hands of agricultural and use the funds to do more for the WIN card holders of Alberta."
Gee Brian , you sound a little upset towards ranchers ... I have losses on both private and lease land bears and wolves don't recognize boundaries. My cost on public land is what the government charges me . That has been debated on this form a million times. This habitat you refer to is not historical ungulate habitat, but was grazed by 60 million Buffalo. Elk etc moved onto long after the Buffalo were gone .My grandfather never saw an elk or white tail deer grazing when he arrived in SW Alberta.cattle replace the Buffalo grazing methods better than anything. I'm sure you disagree. Do you have a link that shows most losses are on crown land ? Because most of mine are on private , in the spring when I'm calving and predators are most hungry. The government only pays a small percentage of what the rancher really do lose to predator kills ., he absorbs the rest. Throw out the payments.. let ranchers and trappers work together to take care of it . Then you can quit complaining.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 01-20-2018, 07:48 PM
elk09 elk09 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 26
Default

I have no issues with ranches being paid for predator losses regardless of whether the ranchers allow hunting or not but never understood why the money should be coming form hunting licence revenues? Hunters do not own predators nor are they responsible for them.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 01-20-2018, 10:22 PM
calgarychef calgarychef is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,667
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elk09 View Post
I have no issues with ranches being paid for predator losses regardless of whether the ranchers allow hunting or not but never understood why the money should be coming form hunting licence revenues? Hunters do not own predators nor are they responsible for them.
Well said. That money would be better used for habitat conservation. The government receives tax money from ranchers maybe some of that money could flow back for predation costs.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 01-21-2018, 10:46 AM
Norwest Alta Norwest Alta is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 3,666
Default

People on here are quite addiment that the wildlife is public trust. The fw are in charge of the public trust so should the damage caused by wildlife not be paid for out of their coffers?
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 01-21-2018, 10:58 AM
boah boah is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 863
Default

There should be ZERO compensation to landowners for predatory loss. Predators come with the territory. Do something to prevent the loss, not expect compensation.
The only compensation should be in selling the furs.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 01-21-2018, 11:08 AM
Norwest Alta Norwest Alta is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 3,666
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boah View Post
There should be ZERO compensation to landowners for predatory loss. Predators come with the territory. Do something to prevent the loss, not expect compensation.
The only compensation should be in selling the furs.
I think any farmer/rancher does what he can to protect his livestock. The problem is we’re not allowed to rid ourselves of some of the predatory animals that are feeding on the livestock.

I do agree with you that there should be zero government compensation for the farmers and or the trappers. Me personally the less government involved in my life the happier I am.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 01-21-2018, 11:16 AM
boah boah is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 863
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Norwest Alta View Post
I think any farmer/rancher does what he can to protect his livestock. The problem is we’re not allowed to rid ourselves of some of the predatory animals that are feeding on the livestock.

I do agree with you that there should be zero government compensation for the farmers and or the trappers. Me personally the less government involved in my life the happier I am.
Premier Klein’s suggestion is the best.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 01-21-2018, 12:00 PM
Norwest Alta Norwest Alta is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 3,666
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boah View Post
Premier Klein’s suggestion is the best.
Best would not have to worry about being illegal and the consequences and doing what is appropriate for the situation.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 01-21-2018, 12:54 PM
Don_Parsons Don_Parsons is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,827
Default

When we ran Cow/ Calf pairs at the Buck Mt Community pastures years ago, some of the funds covered insurance if I recall. This insurance is not cheap by any means,,, nice to have if things went South.

Live stock insurance is much like any other covage,,, houses, autos, crops, farm machinery,,, ect..

https://www.trustedchoice.com/farm-r...estock-cattle/

The plans can fit each persons needs or % of minimum to maximum pay outs and how much deductible is needed on their specific plan.

Most everything around the world has some form of insurance on it, that way it covers the losses if they occur.

I'm only putting this out here as an idea only.

I would have to agree with some of the above posts.
It would be nice to have the funds that are colleted go towards more Fish and Wildlife management. Again,,, just my opinion.

I'm hoping to attend the AFGA meeting in our area to find out if they are aware of this practice.
Thanks for the thread since I didn't even know that this was where some of the funds were coming from.

Don
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 01-21-2018, 01:27 PM
Jamie Jamie is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 10,384
Default

I suggest a tax on all out door related items. BUT outdoorsmen control it. Non of this general revenues crap.
The USA has had this for a very long time and it helps.

I would gladly pay a 3% hit on every thing if I knew the $$ was being used wisely.

This is on every thing outdoor related, let the non hunters who enjoy our wildlife have a shot at paying as well.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 01-21-2018, 01:33 PM
boah boah is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 863
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie View Post
I suggest a tax on all out door related items. BUT outdoorsmen control it. Non of this general revenues crap.
The USA has had this for a very long time and it helps.

I would gladly pay a 3% hit on every thing if I knew the $$ was being used wisely.

This is on every thing outdoor related, let the non hunters who enjoy our wildlife have a shot at paying as well.
Please refrain from voting ndp again.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 01-21-2018, 01:37 PM
Norwest Alta Norwest Alta is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 3,666
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boah View Post
Please refrain from voting ndp again.
X2. Lol
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 01-22-2018, 10:35 PM
michaelmicallef michaelmicallef is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Airdrie
Posts: 1,474
Default

There's good and bad in every group.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 10:26 AM.


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