Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > General Discussion

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #181  
Old 03-28-2014, 12:36 PM
expmler expmler is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Lizard Lake, SK.
Posts: 2,196
Default

Guys, please check out my proposal in post #152.

I would like some input on if you think something like this would work.
  #182  
Old 03-28-2014, 12:36 PM
norwestalta norwestalta is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Hythe
Posts: 4,354
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
PLUS, then you could sell the tags as part of the price for gaining access.....Big bucks!

I lived in Germany for 5 years and all of the hunting there is done on private property where you have to pay to access the land, pay for whatever it is that you harvest, a trophy fee and then more if you want to keep the meat. The end result is that only people that are well off financially can afford to hunt. I would never want to see something like that happen in Canada and I would therefore oppose any calls for going that route.

Either you allow access for hunting or you don't......pretty simple. If you have problem wildlife and you don't allow access to hunters in order to control the problem then why would you complain about the problem if you are doing nothing about it.

If I had beavers causing damage to my land and a trapper volunteered to trap them for me, do you think that I should charge him money to access my land when he's doing me a favour?
Do you think you're doing me a favour by hunting on my land?
Maybe I could designate you as holder of one or two of the ten tags and you go to f&w with my land description to get your tag. If you can eat all ten fill your boots. Believe me I've got better things to do than sell tags. Imo it's better than bringing in the natives.
  #183  
Old 03-28-2014, 12:43 PM
missingtwo missingtwo is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: south of Edm
Posts: 517
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by expmler View Post
In Sask we buy a habitat certificate for a fund to buy lands to allow more hunting opportunities and save habitat. This is mandatory and in addition to all other licences. Cost is $10.79

Tell me what you think about this.

Gov't sets up a program, we'll call it Land owner cooperation fund. Hunters pay $10.00 into this fund in addition to all other licences.

When the land owner grants access to the hunter the land owner copies the hunters license number down and at the end of the season turns it into the gov't and is paid a certain amount.

That way the landowner that is doing everything he can to mitigate wild life damage gets some help, giving hunters access is a benefit to the hunter and land owner.

Those landowners not granting access are left out in the cold.
We already do that in Alberta. It's just named differently.
  #184  
Old 03-28-2014, 12:49 PM
norwestalta norwestalta is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Hythe
Posts: 4,354
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by expmler View Post
In Sask we buy a habitat certificate for a fund to buy lands to allow more hunting opportunities and save habitat. This is mandatory and in addition to all other licences. Cost is $10.79

Tell me what you think about this.

Gov't sets up a program, we'll call it Land owner cooperation fund. Hunters pay $10.00 into this fund in addition to all other licences.

When the land owner grants access to the hunter the land owner copies the hunters license number down and at the end of the season turns it into the gov't and is paid a certain amount.

That way the landowner that is doing everything he can to mitigate wild life damage gets some help, giving hunters access is a benefit to the hunter and land owner.

Those landowners not granting access are left out in the cold.
I don't think it would work because what do you do when the elk get to manageable numbers? There is no end game.

Me personally would rather have the government stay out of my affairs.

How would you provide controls on who accesses your land and how?

I could see possibly using something like that for new hunters but what kind of liabilities might a guy incur.
  #185  
Old 03-28-2014, 12:56 PM
recce43's Avatar
recce43 recce43 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: airdrie
Posts: 5,211
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by norwestalta View Post
Where is this payed hunting coming from? You want me to pay you to hunt? Don't hold your breathe.

Subsidies? What are you talking about? The amount of money my farm brings in probably wouldn't pay your utilities. My company subsidises my farm. You sure don't.

There is not a whole lot of money in a farming operation. It does have its perks like long hours little pay but at least you're your own boss and get to work at home. If you look at the farming demographic there is not a whole lot of new start ups. Why ? Because there is no money in it. Kind of like going to the bar and throwing your bank roll into the video lottery
I know how farms work i grew up on one
__________________
------------------------------------------------------------

LIFE IS TOUGH.....TOUGHER IF YOU'RE STUPID.-------------------“Women have the right to work wherever they want, as long as they have the dinner ready when you get home”
  #186  
Old 03-28-2014, 12:57 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by norwestalta View Post
Do you think you're doing me a favour by hunting on my land?
Actually, for some landowners, yes, I do think that I'm doing them a favour and I'm happy to do it. I would much rather drive a little farther to fill my tags on someone's land that has too many in the herd than go elsewhere because we both get something out of it. I did it just last Fall by taking a couple of does off of a fellas land where the herd was getting to big for his liking.

SHAMELESS PLUG I'm also pri 5 for an antlerless elk and this year I'm hoping to find a landowner that has too many elk on his land and wants me to take one off of his land. I get my elk and there's one less elk for the landowner to deal with. How can you see anything wrong with that?

BTW, I also trap and the landowner where I shot the two does is a rancher and he was delighted to hear that I trapped. Next season he wants me to go onto his land and try to thin out a pack of wolves and some coyotes that have been stealing calves. I get pelts and he gets predator control. Both of us are very happy with the arrangement and why shouldn't we be?

Last edited by HunterDave; 03-28-2014 at 01:09 PM.
  #187  
Old 03-28-2014, 12:59 PM
expmler expmler is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Lizard Lake, SK.
Posts: 2,196
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gust View Post
I asked exmplr if he would be happy if all animals were removed from his property never to return?

He said from a business standpoint yes, but not as a hunter.

So I'm really confused on what a farmer suffering crop damage wants fixed but while playing the field on a potential boon from hunters down the road.

If the animals were removed - high fenced out - and then down the road it became hunky dory to charge for access, would you be cutting the fence in hopes that crop damaging herds return?
I misunderstood, when you said removed I thought you meant killed off.

If they were relocated and I could afford to high fence all of my property I would do it. But we both know that is unfeasible.

I will answer you like this. If the elk are costing me $5000.00 per year in lost hay and grain production and I could recoup that shortfall by charging an access fee I would be OK with the animals on my land because they cost me nothing.

If the only way I could stop the loss was to remove them and build a fence I would do it as long as it was economically feasible. I can't begin to think about the cost of 52 miles of high fence.

If the animals were gone form my property and hunters came to me and said they had a system that ensured that it would not cost me anything to have these animals reintroduced on my land as long as I granted access I would do it.
  #188  
Old 03-28-2014, 01:03 PM
norwestalta norwestalta is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Hythe
Posts: 4,354
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by recce43 View Post
I know how farms work i grew up on one
If you know then you ought to no there is no subsidies.
  #189  
Old 03-28-2014, 01:06 PM
bhguy bhguy is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 490
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by expmler View Post
I misunderstood, when you said removed I thought you meant killed off.

If they were relocated and I could afford to high fence all of my property I would do it. But we both know that is unfeasible.

I will answer you like this. If the elk are costing me $5000.00 per year in lost hay and grain production and I could recoup that shortfall by charging an access fee I would be OK with the animals on my land because they cost me nothing.

If the only way I could stop the loss was to remove them and build a fence I would do it as long as it was economically feasible. I can't begin to think about the cost of 52 miles of high fence.

If the animals were gone form my property and hunters came to me and said they had a system that ensured that it would not cost me anything to have these animals reintroduced on my land as long as I granted access I would do it.

none of these concepts are reality, due to cost or common sense. fence your land, never gunna happen I know what it cost me in time and money for our elk farm. if they cost you 5ooo a year what the heck do you think people should pay? plus the added cost to you for extra insurance I would assume you would want, even at 50 a head, you want 100 people on your land? 1000 a head , not enough would get harvested to make a dent is the supposed high numbers?
__________________
No wonder some of the ABA crowd find it so hard to become proficient with a spear, they are throwing them backwards.

The lack of feathers must confuse some of them
  #190  
Old 03-28-2014, 01:08 PM
recce43's Avatar
recce43 recce43 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: airdrie
Posts: 5,211
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by norwestalta View Post
If you know then you ought to no there is no subsidies.
In 2001, according to Statistics Canada, total net farm income rose 31.8% to $3.7 billion. Farmers’ earnings, however, were exceeded by direct subsidies. In addition to direct subsidies, Canada provides indirect subsidies to the agriculture sector. Over 10 years, the federal and provincial governments supplied approximately $3.53 in agricultural subsidies for every dollar earned by a Canadian farmer. No province operated a profitable farm economy over the past decade.

These findings come from the Urban Renaissance Institute’s annual report, Agricultural Subsidies in Canada 1992-2001. They follow last year’s Agricultural Subsidies in Canada 1991-2000, which revealed that between 1991 and 2000, Canada’s governments provided an average of $3.76 in subsidies for every dollar earned by a Canadian farmer. Eliminating 1991 data from the study accounts for this difference. Even though farmers in 2001 were heavily subsidized, 1991 was a record year for farm subsidization.

This study highlights the role of agricultural subsidies on Canada’s farm economies. The calculated farm subsidy ratio measures the degree of inefficiency in a farm economy — the higher the subsidy, the greater the degree of inefficiency.

The 2001 provincial subsidy/profit rankings, from most to least subsidized, are as follows: Ontario, Alberta, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Newfoundland, British Columbia. Canada as a whole, as well as Prince Edward Island and Saskatchewan all ran negative adjusted net incomes, making a farm subsidy ratio incalculable. Since 1992, Ontario received the most in agricultural subsides, followed by Newfoundland, Quebec, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, Alberta, Prince Edward Island, and British Columbia. Last year Ontario’s farm sector surpassed Newfoundland’s as the most heavily subsidized over the last decade.

The level of subsidies that we report understates the direct and indirect financial assistance that Canadian farmers receive. Our findings are limited to subsidies that Statistics Canada and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada reports for domestic consumption. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada report a significantly higher level of subsidy for use by international bodies such as the World Trade Organization and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which require that the data conform to an internationally agreed upon format. The international format is used, for example, to help resolve trade disputes.

In addition, our study excludes the subsidy that farmers receive through property tax concessions, which Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada stopped reporting after 1996 due to variances in tax policy among provinces and a controversy over the appropriate method of determining the value of concessions. These unreported concessions are substantial. In October 2000, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada released a report on agricultural property tax concessions that provided estimates of concessions for 1997 ranging from $70 million to nearly $1.1 billion, depending on the assumptions made.
__________________
------------------------------------------------------------

LIFE IS TOUGH.....TOUGHER IF YOU'RE STUPID.-------------------“Women have the right to work wherever they want, as long as they have the dinner ready when you get home”
  #191  
Old 03-28-2014, 01:10 PM
recce43's Avatar
recce43 recce43 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: airdrie
Posts: 5,211
Default

and bail outs post bse for farmers and federal money
about $2.6 billion in assistance to farmers and other food producers;
__________________
------------------------------------------------------------

LIFE IS TOUGH.....TOUGHER IF YOU'RE STUPID.-------------------“Women have the right to work wherever they want, as long as they have the dinner ready when you get home”
  #192  
Old 03-28-2014, 01:11 PM
norwestalta norwestalta is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Hythe
Posts: 4,354
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
Actually, for some landowners, yes, I do think that I'm doing them a favour and I'm happy to do it. I would much rather drive a little farther to fill my tags on someone's land that has too many in the herd than go elsewhere because we both get something out of it. I did it just last Fall by taking a couple of does off of a fellas land where the herd was getting to big for his liking.

I'm also pri 5 for an antlerless elk and this year I'm hoping to find a landowner that has too many elk on his land and wants me to take one off of his land. I get my elk and there's one less elk for the landowner to deal with. How can you see anything wrong with that?

BTW, I also trap and the landowner where I shot the two does is a rancher and he was delighted to hear that I trapped. Next season he wants me to go onto his land and try to thin out a pack of wolves and some coyotes that have been stealing calves. I get pelts and he gets predator control. Both of us are very happy with the arrangement and why shouldn't we be?

Sounds like you've got a partnership and a friendship which I commend you for.
What I'm saying is you're not doing me a favour by shooting one elk and to deer. In the grand scheme of things 1-100 does bugger all. If I had ten tags and said Dave I've got ten tags do you need some elk and how many. You say well wife sure would like some. Two should do.
Then you go to f&w to pick it up.
No problem. Your happy I'm happy
  #193  
Old 03-28-2014, 01:14 PM
expmler expmler is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Lizard Lake, SK.
Posts: 2,196
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by norwestalta View Post
I don't think it would work because what do you do when the elk get to manageable numbers? There is no end game.

Me personally would rather have the government stay out of my affairs.

How would you provide controls on who accesses your land and how?

I could see possibly using something like that for new hunters but what kind of liabilities might a guy incur.
Well if the wildlife got down to where they were no longer causing loss there would be no claims and the program could be shut down.

It would still be up to you whether you allow access, although I can't see why you wouldn't.

You would not have any more liability than you do now if you allow access.
  #194  
Old 03-28-2014, 01:17 PM
norwestalta norwestalta is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Hythe
Posts: 4,354
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by recce43 View Post
and bail outs post bse for farmers and federal money
about $2.6 billion in assistance to farmers and other food producers;
Well what do you know. Pardon my ignorance. I was to busy working so I could go farming in 2001
  #195  
Old 03-28-2014, 01:18 PM
recce43's Avatar
recce43 recce43 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: airdrie
Posts: 5,211
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by norwestalta View Post
Well what do you know. Pardon my ignorance. I was to busy working so I could go farming in 2001
And i was to busy serving my country
__________________
------------------------------------------------------------

LIFE IS TOUGH.....TOUGHER IF YOU'RE STUPID.-------------------“Women have the right to work wherever they want, as long as they have the dinner ready when you get home”
  #196  
Old 03-28-2014, 01:18 PM
bhguy bhguy is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 490
Default

but who could track that and make the judgment call that the numbers are right?

this whole nature thing is really an inconvenience im learning from being on here

we need to cull all the animals now to end all the first world problems that we have!
__________________
No wonder some of the ABA crowd find it so hard to become proficient with a spear, they are throwing them backwards.

The lack of feathers must confuse some of them
  #197  
Old 03-28-2014, 01:20 PM
bhguy bhguy is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 490
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by norwestalta View Post
Sounds like you've got a partnership and a friendship which I commend you for.
What I'm saying is you're not doing me a favour by shooting one elk and to deer. In the grand scheme of things 1-100 does bugger all. If I had ten tags and said Dave I've got ten tags do you need some elk and how many. You say well wife sure would like some. Two should do.
Then you go to f&w to pick it up.
No problem. Your happy I'm happy
your doing each other a favor. thats the point
__________________
No wonder some of the ABA crowd find it so hard to become proficient with a spear, they are throwing them backwards.

The lack of feathers must confuse some of them
  #198  
Old 03-28-2014, 01:25 PM
norwestalta norwestalta is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Hythe
Posts: 4,354
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by recce43 View Post
And i was to busy serving my country
That is good because I to have spent some time in the service of Canada. So you are not alone. It's just something I don't need to brag about.
  #199  
Old 03-28-2014, 01:27 PM
norwestalta norwestalta is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Hythe
Posts: 4,354
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bhguy View Post
your doing each other a favor. thats the point
Thank you for seeing what I was try to say
  #200  
Old 03-28-2014, 01:28 PM
Gust Gust is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,408
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by expmler View Post
I misunderstood, when you said removed I thought you meant killed off.

If they were relocated and I could afford to high fence all of my property I would do it. But we both know that is unfeasible.

I will answer you like this. If the elk are costing me $5000.00 per year in lost hay and grain production and I could recoup that shortfall by charging an access fee I would be OK with the animals on my land because they cost me nothing.

If the only way I could stop the loss was to remove them and build a fence I would do it as long as it was economically feasible. I can't begin to think about the cost of 52 miles of high fence.

If the animals were gone form my property and hunters came to me and said they had a system that ensured that it would not cost me anything to have these animals reintroduced on my land as long as I granted access I would do it.
Sorry, I meant to say herded out by baiting or some such thing.
  #201  
Old 03-28-2014, 01:28 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by norwestalta View Post
Sounds like you've got a partnership and a friendship which I commend you for.
What I'm saying is you're not doing me a favour by shooting one elk and to deer. In the grand scheme of things 1-100 does bugger all. If I had ten tags and said Dave I've got ten tags do you need some elk and how many. You say well wife sure would like some. Two should do.
Then you go to f&w to pick it up.
No problem. Your happy I'm happy
I don't understand this logic at all. You say that 1 - 100 does bugger all but then you say that giving you 10 tags to be used on your land is going to solve something.

If I were a landowner with problem elk I would be actively recruiting hunters to come and thin out the herd.....just like the fella that wanted a couple of does taken off of his land. There are a heck of a lot more tags out there than just the 10 that you want. It would take a bit of effort to co-ord who's hunting where and when if you got a lot of people that wanted to hunt your land but a little effort to help control your problem is a small price to pay IMO.

I think that the fella where I shot the two does last Fall has a better business plan. Between me, him, his Son and his friends, we put a pretty good dent into the deer herd and I'm guessing that more than 10 tags were filled considering we all had 3 tags each.
  #202  
Old 03-28-2014, 01:37 PM
recce43's Avatar
recce43 recce43 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: airdrie
Posts: 5,211
Default

well doesn't make much sense if you allowed access to hunt the your issue of wildlife would be solved. if you want hunters to pay for access we will just go somewhere else to hunt or stop buying alberta beef so i can afford to pay for access
__________________
------------------------------------------------------------

LIFE IS TOUGH.....TOUGHER IF YOU'RE STUPID.-------------------“Women have the right to work wherever they want, as long as they have the dinner ready when you get home”
  #203  
Old 03-28-2014, 01:38 PM
Dacotensis's Avatar
Dacotensis Dacotensis is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sherwood Forest
Posts: 5,176
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gust View Post
wait a second; wasn't there an article on hunt farms awhile back? Now buying a farm to provide hunting on would not be a prudent business decision me-thinks. But if it got the go ahead, who's to stop me from leasing - we'll say exmplrs farm - and charge for hunting? Or do I have to raise my own hunting stock?

Is this the direction that the corporate/govt hitmen are looking at seeding or am I wearing a Reynolds Wrap Balaclava to tight?

And we'll pretend exmplr is in Alberta.
We could pretend he is many other members of the pipe banned you know them as well as I do. List of His screen names.
I know your getting older but I'm sure you remember.

Quote:
Originally Posted by expmler View Post
May have received the odd bottle of Rye from some appreciative hunters. No hunter on my land has been asked for a gratuity. Come to my yard and ask permission, fill your boots.

I also pay land tax, 5200 hectares.
As in boots270?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jungleboy View Post
You're kind of riding both sides of the fence here Expmler.On one hand you begrudge the hunter getting what in your mind amounts to a free ride ,but on the other hand you never turn anyone away from that free ride. You don't strike me as the type that knowingly does anything without there being something in it for you so you must see a benefit to having hunters come on your land. It seems like all your posts are more designed to stir things up than anything else.
Yup.

Quote:
Originally Posted by crownb View Post
^^^^^ this, the farmer has zero control on the price of his product, let us set our price in a competitive market that way we can make enough to survive natural disasters, wildlife disasters, pests, trespassing, fire damages and the list goes on. I understand most businesses are susceptible to some of these things, but most businesses compete in a competitive market where you can set your price. One example is and his is not to pick on truckers because they feed the world with supplies, but when fuel goes up he/she can charge more for the haul, when the price of fertilizer rises or fuel or anything that is involved in the process to grow food I can't raise my price, my price is set based on what is happening in the world. Therefore I get to eat all those extra costs, we are handcuffed. I don't agree with paid access or what these beef producers are proposing, but like at the beginning of this post says, let me set my price and no subsidy or assistance will be needed. Thanks jeff
Speaking of which, we should talk about next time your tasty pigs are ready.
I enjoyed the looks I got driving down the hiway with the last one strapped to the trailer
Quote:
Originally Posted by expmler View Post
Like has been said before, would you tell a truck driver the same thing when diesel price go up.
I am pleasantly surprised that most guys slow down their speeds to preserve fuel. Very smart idea! Smart truckers...

I don't eat beef anyway. I shoot what I eat.
So I can't boycott. And most albertans don't share out view on paid access.
But, the day I am asked to pay is the day I move to a greener pasture.
__________________
We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.
Ronald Reagan

Either get busy living, or get busy dying!
  #204  
Old 03-28-2014, 01:39 PM
norwestalta norwestalta is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Hythe
Posts: 4,354
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
I don't understand this logic at all. You say that 1 - 100 does bugger all but then you say that giving you 10 tags to be used on your land is going to solve something.

If I were a landowner with problem elk I would be actively recruiting hunters to come and thin out the herd.....just like the fella that wanted a couple of does taken off of his land. There are a heck of a lot more tags out there than just the 10 that you want. It would take a bit of effort to co-ord who's hunting where and when if you got a lot of people that wanted to hunt your land but a little effort to help control your problem is a small price to pay IMO.

I think that the fella where I shot the two does last Fall has a better business plan. Between me, him, his Son and his friends, we put a pretty good dent into the deer herd and I'm guessing that more than 10 tags were filled considering we all had 3 tags each.
Dave what I'm saying is 100 elk on my place 4 miles over there's another 100 elk. If I had ten tags per 1/4 and neighbor had ten tags per 1/4. I think we could get the elk to manageable levels. Elk don't show up on my place until December. If we had a Sept to Mar farm season would make a helluva a difference. Or even if I could legally say Dave the elk are in my field I'm going to jab one for you, come get it when you've got a minute. No exchange of money just a friendly thing to do that we my both benefit from.
  #205  
Old 03-28-2014, 01:42 PM
norwestalta norwestalta is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Hythe
Posts: 4,354
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by recce43 View Post
well doesn't make much sense if you allowed access to hunt the your issue of wildlife would be solved. if you want hunters to pay for access we will just go somewhere else to hunt or stop buying alberta beef so i can afford to pay for access
You are free to do as you please. At least you've got options.
  #206  
Old 03-28-2014, 01:46 PM
bhguy bhguy is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 490
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
I don't understand this logic at all. You say that 1 - 100 does bugger all but then you say that giving you 10 tags to be used on your land is going to solve something.

If I were a landowner with problem elk I would be actively recruiting hunters to come and thin out the herd.....just like the fella that wanted a couple of does taken off of his land. There are a heck of a lot more tags out there than just the 10 that you want. It would take a bit of effort to co-ord who's hunting where and when if you got a lot of people that wanted to hunt your land but a little effort to help control your problem is a small price to pay IMO.

I think that the fella where I shot the two does last Fall has a better business plan. Between me, him, his Son and his friends, we put a pretty good dent into the deer herd and I'm guessing that more than 10 tags were filled considering we all had 3 tags each.
right on man!!!
__________________
No wonder some of the ABA crowd find it so hard to become proficient with a spear, they are throwing them backwards.

The lack of feathers must confuse some of them
  #207  
Old 03-28-2014, 01:52 PM
Lefty-Canuck's Avatar
Lefty-Canuck Lefty-Canuck is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Look behind you :)
Posts: 27,775
Default

I think the goal for those who support paid hunting is for profit only IMHO....the cons outweigh the pros....sure there are certain "guises" that they want to offer as justification BUT in the end it's the money that people want....

LC
__________________
  #208  
Old 03-28-2014, 01:54 PM
bhguy bhguy is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 490
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck View Post
I think the goal for those who support paid hunting is for profit only IMHO....the cons outweigh the pros....sure there are certain "guises" that they want to offer as justification BUT in the end it's the money that people want....

LC
agreed the numbers thrown out here don't make sense in terms of making up for expenses but sure do for game farms!
__________________
No wonder some of the ABA crowd find it so hard to become proficient with a spear, they are throwing them backwards.

The lack of feathers must confuse some of them
  #209  
Old 03-28-2014, 02:00 PM
recce43's Avatar
recce43 recce43 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: airdrie
Posts: 5,211
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by norwestalta View Post
You are free to do as you please. At least you've got options.
you do to allow access
__________________
------------------------------------------------------------

LIFE IS TOUGH.....TOUGHER IF YOU'RE STUPID.-------------------“Women have the right to work wherever they want, as long as they have the dinner ready when you get home”
  #210  
Old 03-28-2014, 02:03 PM
norwestalta norwestalta is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Hythe
Posts: 4,354
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck View Post
I think the goal for those who support paid hunting is for profit only IMHO....the cons outweigh the pros....sure there are certain "guises" that they want to offer as justification BUT in the end it's the money that people want....

LC
For the most part you're right lefty. I'd be more than happy to give a lot more access out if somebody wants to put in their time and resources to make my farm more profitable. As a economical move I'm better off to keep my day job in the patch and have somebody do my farm work for me in exchange for access. I'll even supply lunch supper and breakfast.
It is all about profit. The patch is very profitable for me where farming isn't.
Closed Thread

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 01:24 AM.


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