Paid Hunting in Alberta?

.

Originally Posted by LongDraw

Seems like I am yelling into an empty hallway!

I am against the HFH.

I am for the RAMP.

This has not wavered in my stance.

We obviously have different definitions of "paid hunting"

You might be right about our definitions for sure....but still just wondering how you paying directly for access differs from you using a middleman...in this case the government.

no direct compensation from hunters to landowners. Access rewarded by govt. Where money comes from not yet determined but likely license fees.

That's where things get muddy to me...it would seem that I am directly compensating the landowner, albeit through a middleman.

If I draw a WMU108 mule deer tag and get access to an HFH ranch, I'm not going to pay a cent.......nor is the goverment on my behalf.

Not making comment on the pitfalls or merit of either here but it seems that the definition of paid hunting varies widely. It's a bit ironic that the title of theis thread is paid hunting yet it seems that we can't even all agree on the definition, let alone form an opinion on Open Spaces. No doubt for some it's very clear but for others it apparently isn't.

.

Ramp is more like compensation for something they control (access) already.

And if that access is for hunting is not by the fact that they are receiving compensation for it...paid hunting?

[209x50]

Originally Posted by lurch

HFH creates direct marketing by Landowners of a public owned resource. Hunter pays Landowner = Landowner control of wildlife
Everone agrees this is paid hunting.

RAMP is theoretically going to be controlled by the gov't - no direct compensation from hunters to landowners. Access rewarded by govt. Where money comes from not yet determined but likely license fees. Govt still regulates
Some folks think this is paid hunting still.

I think the major difference in palatability is: HFH gives landowners more control with the money and a public resource, while RAMP compensates a landowner for something he already controls - access

Lurch you are hilarious! If you can see a difference in what you have described then you can rationalize anything.
In both cases is the end result Alberta residents hunting on a land owners land? In both cases is the land owner paid for allowing hunting on their land?
Who pays, how much is paid or how it is paid doesnt change the fact that a transaction has taken place. A commodity (access) has been bought and paid for.

Oh LD gibberish is still gibberish even when you shout it.

[LongDraw]

If the Government would have just announced one program- RAMP I believe most people would have seen the good intention it has to open up private land. Whether it will work or not? Time will tell.

The HFH is what is creating the controversy.

I buy the landowner a bottle of expensive scotch every year where I kill my elk, which is alot more than the $20 he would get through RAMP. Is this paid hunting? I think not, but I am sure others would differ.

I would be afraid that if he was in WMU 300 and he now had a few vouchers to market my "free" access could possibly be in jeopardy? Again who knows for sure?

If the Government would have just announced one program- RAMP I believe most people would have seen the good intention it has to open up private land. Whether it will work or not? Time will tell.

From what I've seen on this thread most are against both RAMP and HFH but you could be right. I just find it interesting how you can justify one as paid hunting and the other as not. I respect your opinions about RAMP, I'm just having a hard time getting my head around how you define paid hunting and as that's where this thread began, it would seem important to the issue.

[LongDraw]

209,

Your stance on paying a landowner for a voucher is glaringly obvious, even though you always stop at the 3 yard line with a "yes" or "no"

Two different opinions nothing more, nothing less.

[LongDraw]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

From what I've seen on this thread most are against both RAMP and HFH but you could be right. I just find it interesting how you can justify one as paid hunting and the other as not. I respect your opinions about RAMP, I'm just having a hard time getting my head around how you define paid hunting and as that's where this thread began, it would seem important to the issue.

I've gone on guided hunts, so yes I've paid for hunting.

It is the landowners getting vouchers that I am not in favor of.

Hope that clears it up a bit more for ya.

[Waxy]

Originally Posted by 209x50

Lurch you are hilarious! If you can see a difference in what you have described then you can rationalize anything.
In both cases is the end result Alberta residents hunting on a land owners land? In both cases is the land owner paid for allowing hunting on their land?
Who pays, how much is paid or how it is paid doesnt change the fact that a transaction has taken place. A commodity (access) has been bought and paid for.

Oh LD gibberish is still gibberish even when you shout it.

I don't find it hilarious that people can't see the obvious difference here, I find it rather pathetic.

It can only be stated so many times in so many ways, but I'll give it a go.

Firstly, I agree with 209 and Sheep for the most part regarding the RAMP program, and I don't particularly care for the scenario proposed by Dogpound. You are paying for access, plain and simple. I don't like it and I never will. However, as a realist, I realize that this type of compensation is somewhat inevitable in the world we live in today. There's no such thing as free lunch anymore, especially when it comes to recreation. It's like paying for a camp site, a round of golf or a lift ticket. Provided the RAMP program was tied to increasing or bettering habitat, I can live with. I realize that private landowners do take on a burden in this process, and I realize that one way or another, it will be us as hunters that are going to have to foot that bill.

The clear difference in the HFH program is that the landowner controls the distribution of the tags and their price as opposed to the gov't. That puts control of the wildlife, a public resource, directly in their hands to do with as they see fit. That is NOT a minor detail. In this case, the middleman is critical, as the gov't maintains control of the public's assets.

I refuse to believe that anyone involved in this discussion is not bright enough to recognize that critical difference.

Waxy

Originally Posted by LongDraw

I've gone on guided hunts, so yes I've paid for hunting.

It is the landowners getting vouchers that I am not in favor of.

Hope that clears it up a bit more for ya.

Sorry I guess I should have been clearer, I was speaking of paid access for hunting here in Alberta. How is landowners getting compensated with cash for allowing you access to hunt not paid hunting? LD, I'm not trying to be difficult here, I'm just trying to get a different perspective. You seem to be offering one. Quite honestly I'm interested in how you make the differentiation. It seems most don't.

[russ]

Originally Posted by LongDraw

I buy the landowner a bottle of expensive scotch every year where I kill my elk, which is alot more than the $20 he would get through RAMP. Is this paid hunting? I think not, but I am sure others would differ.

Now if your idea of expensive scotch is $50, no that's more of a gift. But if you're buying the $1000 stuff that's definitely crossing the line.

As far as RAMP being paid hunting, I would say not. The landowner is compensated, but to be compensated we have to want to hunt on his land and he has to want to do a bit of paperwork to get the money. The public still maintains control of the wildlife and if the landowner likes that extra bit of cash flow he has to make it worth OUR time to pick his land. That would be a good thing.

HFH, on the other hand is a totally different animal. Here we have landowners SELLING tags for hunting. If that isn't paid hunting, then nothing is. If the landowner doesn't have habitat to begin with and / or doesn't make up a large piece of the WMU it's my understanding that the landholder is out of the picture.

Without a lot of info to go on, it would seem to me that the better system - if there must be one chosen is RAMP. I think it offers far more incentive for habitat improvement of the 2.

[209x50]

Originally Posted by LongDraw

If the Government would have just announced one program- RAMP I believe most people would have seen the good intention it has to open up private land. Whether it will work or not? Time will tell.

The HFH is what is creating the controversy.

I buy the landowner a bottle of expensive scotch every year where I kill my elk, which is alot more than the $20 he would get through RAMP. Is this paid hunting? I think not, but I am sure others would differ.

I would be afraid that if he was in WMU 300 and he now had a few vouchers to market my "free" access could possibly be in jeopardy? Again who knows for sure?

Off course you have paid him for access, does make you a bit of a hypocrite that as long as you control what and how much he gets that paid hunting is just fine.

[209x50]

Originally Posted by LongDraw

209,

Your stance on paying a landowner for a voucher is glaringly obvious, even though you always stop at the 3 yard line with a "yes" or "no"

Two different opinions nothing more, nothing less.

So explain my stance to me. I'm interested and all ears.

As far as RAMP being paid hunting, I would say not. The landowner is compensated, but to be compensated we have to want to hunt on his land and he has to want to do a bit of paperwork to get the money. The public still maintains control of the wildlife and if the landowner likes that extra bit of cash flow he has to make it worth OUR time to pick his land. That would be a good thing.

But how does that differe from a landowner charging the hunter directly for access?

[russ]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

But how does that differe from a landowner charging the hunter directly for access?

Lots, with RAMP we should still have control of the resource, all the landowner controls is access to the resource. The way I understand HFH, the landowner has complete control of the resource, up to, and including the ability to choose to not sell the tags.

Originally Posted by russ

Lots, with RAMP we should still have control of the resource, all the landowner controls is access to the resource. The way I understand HFH, the landowner has complete control of the resource, up to, and including the ability to choose to not sell the tags.

I wasn't comparing HFH to RAMP...I was comparing RAMP to hunters directly compensating landowners for access (the traditional definition of paid hunting). I actually wasn't talking about HFH at all, just RAMP.

Neither RAMP nor HFH permits direct hunter compensation for access.

I was just interested in your thoughts how what you said about RAMP differs from the traditional definition of paid hunting/access

As far as RAMP being paid hunting, I would say not. The landowner is compensated, but to be compensated we have to want to hunt on his land and he has to want to do a bit of paperwork to get the money. The public still maintains control of the wildlife and if the landowner likes that extra bit of cash flow he has to make it worth OUR time to pick his land. That would be a good thing.

[209x50]

Originally Posted by Waxy

The clear difference in the HFH program is that the landowner controls the distribution of the tags and their price as opposed to the gov't. That puts control of the wildlife, a public resource, directly in their hands to do with as they see fit. That is NOT a minor detail. In this case, the middleman is critical, as the gov't maintains control of the public's assets.

I refuse to believe that anyone involved in this discussion is not bright enough to recognize that critical difference.

Waxy

The HFH gets what ever the market will bear, which I suspect will drop quickly after the first 38 are shot off the ranch. There is a big difference between selling a tag and selling an animal. They are a middle man between the government and the hunter in the purchase of a tag.
Not much different than the government being the middle man in the RAMP is it?

[LongDraw]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Sorry I guess I should have been clearer, I was speaking of paid access for hunting here in Alberta. How is landowners getting compensated with cash for allowing you access to hunt not paid hunting? LD, I'm not trying to be difficult here, I'm just trying to get a different perspective. You seem to be offering one. Quite honestly I'm interested in how you make the differentiation. It seems most don't.

Russ pretty well summed up how I feel about it.

If I could negotioate a trespass fee with a landowner- Paid hunting.

If he gets a small incentive per head as per RAMP- Government regulated incentive.

Yes he is getting money through RAMP. The more access he grants the more he stands to make. I consider this a good thing, if this is your definition of paid hunting then yes, I support it. I don't consider this paid hunting.

[209x50]

Originally Posted by russ

Lots, with RAMP we should still have control of the resource, all the landowner controls is access to the resource. The way I understand HFH, the landowner has complete control of the resource, up to, and including the ability to choose to not sell the tags.

How does the HFH have complete control of the resource? Do they have the deer tied up in a pen? No, the hunter is buying a tag to hunt on the HFH land, not buying a deer.

[LongDraw]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Neither RAMP nor HFH permits direct hunter compensation for access

But HFH allows direct compensation for the tag. What is the difference really?

Originally Posted by LongDraw

Russ pretty well summed up how I feel about it.

If I could negotioate a trespass fee with a landowner- Paid hunting.

If he gets a small incentive per head as per RAMP- Government regulated incentive.

Yes he is getting money through RAMP. The more access he grants the more he stands to make. I consider this a good thing, if this is your definition of paid hunting then yes, I support it. I don't consider this paid hunting.

Thanks LD...I wasn't passing judgement on paid hunting or RAMP...just trying to follow your thought process. It seemed a bit contradictory. So just to be sure I'm clear...if it's a nominal fee control by the government it's not paid hunting in your mind but if the landowner takes the money directly it is? Thanks and sorry to be such a pain...just trying to get my head around what you are saying so I don't take anything out of context.

Originally Posted by LongDraw

But HFH allows direct compensation for the tag. What is the difference really?

For the tag they sell but not for the resident access they are required to allow at least the way I understand it.

[russ]

Originally Posted by 209x50

How does the HFH have complete control of the resource? Do they have the deer tied up in a pen? No, the hunter is buying a tag to hunt on the HFH land, not buying a deer.

One of the rumours going around that the land units falling under HFH would be 60,000 contiguous acres. Thats very nearly 94 square miles, or an area thats 10 SECTIONS Long by 9.5 SECTIONS wide.

BTW, does anyone know what kind of a business unit it will take to make up an eligible land area? What about land owners creating a co-op and selling the tags? It's not beyond the scope of reality, in fact I would consider that to a clear option.

Originally Posted by russ

One of the rumours going around that the land units falling under HFH would be 60,000 contiguous acres. Thats very nearly 94 square miles, or an area thats 10 SECTIONS Long by 9.5 SECTIONS wide.

BTW, does anyone know what will kind of a business unit it will take to make up an eligible land area? What about land owners creating a co-op and selling the tags? It's not beyond the scope of reality, in fact I would consider that to a clear option.

60,000 acres is what I originally heard but haven't seen that in print for quite some time. Not sure if it changed or not.

[LongDraw]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Thanks LD...I wasn't passing judgement on paid hunting or RAMP...just trying to follow your thought process. It seemed a bit contradictory. So just to be sure I'm clear...if it's a nominal fee control by the government it's not paid hunting in your mind but if the landowner takes the money directly it is? Thanks and sorry to be such a pain...just trying to get my head around what you are saying so I don't take anything out of context.

That about sums it up. You know as well as I if RAMP was self administered by landowners it would be a fiasco. It would go from a program to promote access to paid hunting in a hurry if a landowner could directly charge- Which is illegal as it now stands.

I discussed this with 209.

That about sums it up.

Thanks!

You know as well as I if RAMP was self administered by landowners it would be a fiasco. It would go from a program to promote access to paid hunting in a hurry if a landowner could directly charge-

I guess the distinction between paid hunting and RAMP is not as clear to me as you so not sure I know as well as you but I agree that an unregulated policy of landowners charging hunters directly for access would increase access costs in many areas over a government regulated plan like RAMP.

Sorry for the double post but I replied previously before you edited.

[LongDraw]

I've spelled it out as well as others, and for the most part the "no's" are pretty united with how they feel about both programs.

You and 209 have sat on the fence and played the "devils advocate" long enough for me. Time for you guy's to spell it out. Tell us what you think is good or bad about both programs.

My eyes are hurting from all of the reading between the lines in both yours, and 209's posts.

Just cough, it won't be that bad...