Paid Hunting

[salamander]

This article appeared in the December 19, 2013, Western Producer. It is similar to one previously discussed by Walking Buffalo. The wording around paid hunting is ambiguous. Do they want to pay hunters to reduce the elk numbers or do they want hunters to pay for access?

THE WESTERN PRODUCER |
WWW.PRODUCER.COM |
DECEMBER,19, 2013 Page 81
STEWARDSHIP, PREDATION PAYMENTS DISCUSSED
BY BARB GLEN
LETHBRIDGE BUREAU
The care and feeding of wildlife was on the minds of ranchers earlier this month at the Alberta Beef Producers annual meeting.
Six of the 20 resolutions that members passed dealt with how cattle production overlaps with predators and wild grazing animals.
The ABP executive has been directed to lobby government for quicker payments for livestock predation, allow paid hunting under the wildlife act and increase elk hunting in problem areas.
“There’s a number of places now within the province that swath grazing or bale grazing is almost not even a possibility because the wildlife will wreck it before your cattle even get a chance to eat it,” said new ABP chair Greg Bowie of Ponoka, Alta.
Elk have become a particular problem, notably in an area surrounding Canadian Forces Base Suffield where a herd estimated at 5,000 eats and damages nearby private grass-land.
There are similar concerns in grazing areas along the eastern slopes of the Rockies in southwestern Alberta. Wildlife issues were also addressed in a more encompassing resolution directing ABP to lobby for market-based payments to those who provide ecological goods and services. The idea that landowners should be compensated for stewardship they provide in the form of wildlife habitat, water protection and conservation, biodiversity and other services has been arising more frequently, Bowie said.
“There’s lots of places in the world where people are compensated in one form or another for providing those things, whether it is the wildlife itself or marshlands or areas to protect water sources,” he said.
“It isn’t going to be a simple task, that’s for sure. It will take some time and it will take a lot of thought to get this thing right.”
The Canadian Cattlemen’s Association established a task force to explore the options about a year ago, Bowie added, and ABP is part of that.
Task force members are exploring ecological goods and services pro-grams elsewhere in Canada and in other countries to determine what will be sustainable, market-driven and fair, Bowie said.
ABP members also resolved to oppose plans to re-introduce bison to Banff National Park because of fears of disease transmission to cattle herds near the park. Bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis can infect bison and cattle and have been detected in the past in bison surrounding Wood Buffalo National Park.
Ranchers don’t want the same occurrence near Banff.
“We know that there’s disease problems up there (near Wood Buffalo National Park), and until there’s a lot of assurances that these animals will be clean and that they will be contained ... there’s a number of concerns there,” said Bowie."

[elkhunter1234]

LOL... Pay hunters to reduce elk numbers, that's funny... Sorry but, No my freind they indeed want us hunters to pay them for access.

Jim..

[Don K]

Originally Posted by elkhunter1234

LOL... Pay hunters to reduce elk numbers, that's funny... Sorry but, No my freind they indeed want us hunters to pay them for access.

Jim..

Yep... Pretty brutal IMO. If that becomes the case I think all leased grazing land should have the leases rescinded. Give the wild animals a place to naturally graze again. That'd shut up a lot of the large cattle producers that are doing a lot of the bit**ing. Lots of their land is leased land.

[cougarhunter]

ATTENTION


Alberta outdoorsmen and women should also know the govenrment is planning on increasing and creating more provincial park in some great hunting areas in our province. EX: expanding the Don Getty, The Sibbald Lake, South Ghost and North Ghost just to name a few spots that I know for sure.

THIS COULD MEAN NO MORE HUNTING IN SOME OF THESE AREAS.

Anyone concerned about this should voice their opinions. I wish I could say more. The only reason I know abou this is a rancher friend of mine has a forestry permit in some of these areas. He was telling me about some of these plans after attending a meeting on the matter last week.

I think it's crazy they aren't telling people about this. If I knew more I would say. If anyone does have more info on it please tell us when and where we can try to stop this. I'm all for keeping atv's out of sheep habitat but I don't think everywhere bighorns live should be park.

[walking buffalo]

Welcome to the South Saskatchewan Regional Plan! Paid hunting on Private and Public Land....

The same people that attempted to enact Open Spaces held board positions to make this recommendation.




The "payments for livestock depredation" is restitution paid for Predator caused loss to livestock paid for by Hunters through the Alberta Conservation Association (ACA) fund. The ABA is upset as they feel the ACA has been slow in making payments of a insufficient amount. This was explained by the ACA in this article.
http://www.producer.com/2013/11/livi...h-a-price-tag/
--------------------
The province’s compensation payments are issued through the ACA using funds from hunting and fishing licences.


Bectell speculated that the ACA delayed payments to make a point with government that hunters and anglers should not be footing the entire bill for compensation.


“I just don’t think that we need to be the guys that get hit on the head when the ACA is trying to make a political point,” he said.


Zimmerling said the group ran out of money in its compensation fund last year so it delayed payments to ranchers until its new budget year.


He said the federal government pays 60 percent of predator compensation costs in British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and the ACA has been lobbying for the same federal contribution in Alberta.

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


In addition to the money from your hunting licence that will go to ranchers experiencing livestock depredation, if this goes through, we could enjoy a 10 years wait to draw a Suffield Bull tag and then pay $5-15 THOUSAND in order to hunt the boundary.



It's good to see that the Alberta Beef Producers and the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association have finally stated clearly that they are requesting Paid Access for hunting to private and leased Crown land.


Hopefully the forum members that care about the future of hunting will take the time to fill out the workbook to help stop paid access to hunt on private and Public Land....


It is easy to do your part to stop paid hunting in Alberta,
Please take the time to fill out the workbook.

https://www.banister.ab.ca/ssrpphase3/

[bobalong]

Originally Posted by Don K

Yep... Pretty brutal IMO. If that becomes the case I think all leased grazing land should have the leases rescinded. Give the wild animals a place to naturally graze again. That'd shut up a lot of the large cattle producers that are doing a lot of the bit**ing. Lots of their land is leased land.

You think the wild animals don't graze on land where there is cattle......LOL. Might be a new record, only three posts before someone starts dumping on the landowners again.

[Full Curl Earl]

I am quite surprised that ACA pays these fees from hunter dollars, ok, surprised is a bad word, disappointed is better. Why shouldn't all tax payers, including ranchers, partake in the bill that fills their pockets? How did this ever become a hunting community responsibility? So when u think your license dollars are going to habitat enhancement, think again. They might just be going to the guy down the road with 200 head of elk on his land, eating his crop to the ground, but won't allow hunters access. And this happens often, not usually around Suffield, those folks are good people, and unusually accepting to hunters.

[Don K]

Originally Posted by bobalong

You think the wild animals don't graze on land where there is cattle......LOL. Might be a new record, only three posts before someone starts dumping on the landowners again.

Absolutely they do! Not trying to dump on landowners, I am one. It's just ridiculous that we are coming to this. If you don't want someone on your land fair enough, but if you have problems with animals figure it out. I'm tired of the entitled azz**les feeling they can turn everything into a revenue stream. These same people use our land (our land meaning all taxpayers) to graze their animals which they sell and profit from, yet have issues when animals are on their land (some of which is leased land too).
I could afford to hunt if there was a 'fee' to be paid, and in some respects cold benefit from it. Just look for land like you might an outfitter, pay the guy. Show up and hunt prime land uninterrupted by others.
That said, I hope this never happens! They are our animals, not an individuals... Give a landowner a tag, but beyond that nothing more!!
Again nothing against landowners but lets not start something that puts a monetary value on wildlife for residents...

[Don K]

Originally Posted by Full Curl Earl

Why shouldn't all tax payers, including ranchers, partake in the bill that fills their pockets? How did this ever become a hunting community responsibility? So when u think your license dollars are going to habitat enhancement, think again. They might just be going to the guy down the road with 200 head of elk on his land, eating his crop to the ground, but won't allow hunters access.

Our neck of the woods is filled with these guys... Simpsons are at the front of the pack. Given this year they did allow a few on.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by bobalong

You think the wild animals don't graze on land where there is cattle......LOL. Might be a new record, only three posts before someone starts dumping on the landowners again.

No worries Bob.

Guys here are dumping on landowners about as much as they feel dumped on by landowners when some make moves like the one in that article.

Fairs fair.

For my part I see no problem... if they get their way... hunt somewhere else.
Stop showing up to kill gophers and raise cain about further subsidies to those that participate.

Lots of ways to respond to this without getting snippy about it.

I'm pretty sure that an irritated hunting community with a common cause can be just as effective as the firearms community was when they finally relized that they had a problem.

Free access or no population control or subsidy should help those landowners in question realize the advantages to a continued symbiotic relationship over a bussiness proposal right quick.

Like I said...fairs fair... recognize that hunters and landowners are doing each other a favour here or... find out what its like when nobody feels they owe you any favours at all.

If guys want to turn it into a bussiness proposition...they should expect others to treat it that way and that means trying to turn things to their own advantage.

Thats how capitalism works...right?

Might be a new record.... took ya only 6 posts to tell us that landwoners can do no wrong.
Good luck with your new enterprise.

[Dacotensis]

Originally Posted by Full Curl Earl

I am quite surprised that ACA pays these fees from hunter dollars, ok, surprised is a bad word, disappointed is better. Why shouldn't all tax payers, including ranchers, partake in the bill that fills their pockets? How did this ever become a hunting community responsibility? So when u think your license dollars are going to habitat enhancement, think again. They might just be going to the guy down the road with 200 head of elk on his land, eating his crop to the ground, but won't allow hunters access. And this happens often, not usually around Suffield, those folks are good people, and unusually accepting to hunters.

I've discovered in this province that the large majority of landowners allow hunters on their land. They get it. They know what the solution is.
There is an extremely small percentage that are Richards in this matter.
One will be along shortly to give us his opinion. But he's on my ignore list so I won't be able to read his typical rant.

Hey, how about we get rid of all the ferral horses in the province?
That would create more space for huntable wildlife.
Or create a season for horses. I'd eat one, put money into the coffers, and solve a problem.
Paid hunting keeps coming up in this province.
Makes me wonder which of out politicians or executives has something to gain from it.

[Flatlandliver]

Originally Posted by Don K

Our neck of the woods is filled with these guys... Simpsons are at the front of the pack. Given this year they did allow a few on.

As far as I know Don, they allowed everybody on, at least in the season we were there, as did all of the other ranchers, although some limited the amount per day. Who should compensate them for damage done by the elk is the question. Who paid them for the damage done by the feral horses before they were replaced by the elk?
I think if you choose to farm/ranch in a area with elk or whatever then that is just part of doing business but these elk were put there by guess who and have been mismanaged to the point that now there is a huge problem. Most if not all of the locals know that hunting is the only way to reduce the herd, hence the liberal access. A few have already figured out how to get a few nickels from us hunters.( think food/lodging)

[walking buffalo]

I find it very questionable policy that has Hunters paying for livestock loss due to predators. This needs to change especially in with ESRD's management plans for maintaining strong to high predator numbers. I don't mind chipping in, but hunters shouldn't be asked to pay the lion's share.

Under NO circumstance should Disposition holders be allowed to receive compensation for losses from wildlife, whether through Paid access or other schemes.


Now with Private lands, I do feel that landowners should have the opportunity to be rewarded for maintaining healthy wildlife and habitat. Paid access for hunting is NOT the way to do this. Again, Hunters should not bear the main burden for maintaining wildlife, a Public resource enjoyed by all.

My suggestion is that a Taxable benefit (credit) be available to Landowners that maintain wildlife and habitat that we all enjoy, Hunters and non-hunters. Under a tax credit program, ALL Albertans will "pay" a share to help Private landowners maintain wildlife habitat. Under a tax credit program, Only landowners that actually maintain wildlife habitat will have access to this credit, while any neighbors without habitat that simply skim the cream that spills over from adjacent lands will not be rewarded for doing nothing.

[Lr1000]

5-15 thousand to hunt the boundary???? I'd like to see how many ppl keep applying for that draw! I know I wouldn't! Would rather give that money to some outfitter in the states and sat screw the gov.

[longrange1000]

Nothing like expanding the farmer welfare program!

It's a bloody joke!

[Flatlandliver]

Originally Posted by longrange1000

Nothing like expanding the farmer welfare program!

It's a bloody joke!

Your absolutely right but with guys paying $8000 to $10000 down south to kill a 350" bull don't kid yourself that there won't be a market. Just not for guys like you and I. Here's hoping this idea dies a fast death.

[albertadave]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Welcome to the South Saskatchewan Regional Plan! Paid hunting on Private and Public Land....

The same people that attempted to enact Open Spaces held board positions to make this recommendation.




The "payments for livestock depredation" is restitution paid for Predator caused loss to livestock paid for by Hunters through the Alberta Conservation Association (ACA) fund. The ABA is upset as they feel the ACA has been slow in making payments of a insufficient amount. This was explained by the ACA in this article.
http://www.producer.com/2013/11/livi...h-a-price-tag/
--------------------
The province’s compensation payments are issued through the ACA using funds from hunting and fishing licences.


Bectell speculated that the ACA delayed payments to make a point with government that hunters and anglers should not be footing the entire bill for compensation.


“I just don’t think that we need to be the guys that get hit on the head when the ACA is trying to make a political point,” he said.


Zimmerling said the group ran out of money in its compensation fund last year so it delayed payments to ranchers until its new budget year.


He said the federal government pays 60 percent of predator compensation costs in British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and the ACA has been lobbying for the same federal contribution in Alberta.

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


In addition to the money from your hunting licence that will go to ranchers experiencing livestock depredation, if this goes through, we could enjoy a 10 years wait to draw a Suffield Bull tag and then pay $5-15 THOUSAND in order to hunt the boundary.



It's good to see that the Alberta Beef Producers and the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association have finally stated clearly that they are requesting Paid Access for hunting to private and leased Crown land.


Hopefully the forum members that care about the future of hunting will take the time to fill out the workbook to help stop paid access to hunt on private and Public Land....


It is easy to do your part to stop paid hunting in Alberta,
Please take the time to fill out the workbook.

https://www.banister.ab.ca/ssrpphase3/

Thanks WB. Went through it, and filled it out tonight.

[KBF]

Read mainly the stuff on the Castle area. A little bit confused as to what a Wildland provincial park is? What did I miss

[elkhunter1234]

Originally Posted by KBF

Read mainly the stuff on the Castle area. A little bit confused as to what a Wildland provincial park is? What did I miss

I'm pretty sure that's their way of saying you had better be buying yourself a good pair of boots and a good mountain horse cause that the only way your going to be hunting that Castle area, if this wildland park goes through.

Jim..

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by KBF

Read mainly the stuff on the Castle area. A little bit confused as to what a Wildland provincial park is? What did I miss

Did you review the SSRP Draft?
https://landuse.alberta.ca/LandUse%2...2013-10-10.pdf


Wildland Parks allow hunting, and are under the authority of the Minister of Parks, who can close down hunting through a Ministerial order behind closed doors.

The conservation and land use levels of a Wildland Park are decent, but having Parks personnel holding the trigger to kill hunting is not the best for continuance of our lifestyle.

I hope people understand the scope of change being proposed here. Paid Access is being pushed for all Public Land under a disposition. There is NO Public Land that does not have a disposition on it, most have many different types (Gravel, Grazing, Minerals, Oil/Gas....)

As this Draft is being pushed forward, ALL land in Southern Alberta would require payment to private individuals for access to hunt.


All one needs to do is look south to see how Paid access has worked for the Resident hunter. It costs big bucks to chase bucks, bulls and birds....

Please take the time and fill out the workbook, and if you do not want hunters to be left alone to pay for wildlife and habitat, tell the government they will lose your vote if they proceed with Paid Access in any form.

SSRP Public Consultation Workbook.
https://www.banister.ab.ca/ssrpphase3/

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by 12DLT

As far as I know Don, they allowed everybody on, at least in the season we were there, as did all of the other ranchers, although some limited the amount per day. Who should compensate them for damage done by the elk is the question. Who paid them for the damage done by the feral horses before they were replaced by the elk?
I think if you choose to farm/ranch in a area with elk or whatever then that is just part of doing business but these elk were put there by guess who and have been mismanaged to the point that now there is a huge problem. Most if not all of the locals know that hunting is the only way to reduce the herd, hence the liberal access. A few have already figured out how to get a few nickels from us hunters.( think food/lodging)

Is someone going to compensate me for the pigeon poop on my vehicles or when I get a mouse in the house?
What about when robins build a nest in my garage?

Why should anyone be subdidized more than they already are for what would seem to be a pretty straight foreward and anticipated copst of doing business?

There are already programs in place to help folks out and that should be good enough.

[bobalong]

Originally Posted by Big Daddy Badger

No worries Bob.

Guys here are dumping on landowners about as much as they feel dumped on by landowners when some make moves like the one in that article.

Fairs fair.

For my part I see no problem... if they get their way... hunt somewhere else.
Stop showing up to kill gophers and raise cain about further subsidies to those that participate.

Lots of ways to respond to this without getting snippy about it.

I'm pretty sure that an irritated hunting community with a common cause can be just as effective as the firearms community was when they finally relized that they had a problem.

Free access or no population control or subsidy should help those landowners in question realize the advantages to a continued symbiotic relationship over a bussiness proposal right quick.

Like I said...fairs fair... recognize that hunters and landowners are doing each other a favour here or... find out what its like when nobody feels they owe you any favours at all.

If guys want to turn it into a bussiness proposition...they should expect others to treat it that way and that means trying to turn things to their own advantage.

Thats how capitalism works...right?

Might be a new record.... took ya only 6 posts to tell us that landwoners can do no wrong.
Good luck with your new enterprise.

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.

[H380]

Hutterites are gonna be on the top of the list if this paid hunting idea goes thru . All you guys that hunt their land will have to cough up real quick cause they will be first in line to start charging . Sad to say , but this will close down alot of land all the way from Waterton park to the Sask. border .... except to those who are willing to pay .

[Flatlandliver]

Why should anyone be subdidized more than they already are for what would seem to be a pretty straight foreward and anticipated copst of doing business?

I guess my only response to your comment would be that it is not a anticipated cost because they were introduced to the area and have gotten out of control because of mismanagement. I am not for handouts to farmers either, but I think this is a different case.

[bobalong]

Originally Posted by H380

Hutterites are gonna be on the top of the list if this paid hunting idea goes thru . All you guys that hunt their land will have to cough up real quick cause they will be first in line to start charging . Sad to say , but this will close down alot of land all the way from Waterton park to the Sask. border .... except to those who are willing to pay .

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.

[Flatlandliver]

Originally Posted by Big Daddy Badger

Is someone going to compensate me for the pigeon poop on my vehicles or when I get a mouse in the house?.

What if you and your family lived in that house for 120 years or so and some dude from the gov. came by and dropped a handful of mice in your yard because they were "native" to the area. Then in 10 years or so the 7000 mice on your property were in your walls and eating the food in your closet, generally wrecking all your stuff. Bet you would want them to pay the costs then.

[BeeGuy]

Originally Posted by 12DLT

What if you and your family lived in that house for 120 years or so and some dude from the gov. came by and dropped a handful of mice in your yard because they were "native" to the area. Then in 10 years or so the 7000 mice on your property were in your walls and eating the food in your closet, generally wrecking all your stuff. Bet you would want them to pay the costs then.

maybe take the fence down that keeps the cats out

[Ranch11]

Allowing hunters to hunt their land is the by far the easiest way to eradicate a wildlife problem. The issue with some of these landowners is that they don't want or allow hunters on there. However, they want compensated for the damage being done by wildlife. Just doesn't make sense! If I had a problem with elk like they do, I'd open the doors right up and tell every guy I seen with a rifle to shoot five and take one. Elk make a mess. I've seen it when I lived in the peace river area. Our neighbour had a huge problem, and he let everyone hunt. The problem was that the other neighbour wouldn't let guys hunt, and the elk flourished.

[Flatlandliver]

Originally Posted by Ranch11

Allowing hunters to hunt their land is the by far the easiest way to eradicate a wildlife problem. The issue with some of these landowners is that they don't want or allow hunters on there. However, they want compensated for the damage being done by wildlife. Just doesn't make sense! If I had a problem with elk like they do, I'd open the doors right up and tell every guy I seen with a rifle to shoot five and take one. Elk make a mess. I've seen it when I lived in the peace river area. Our neighbour had a huge problem, and he let everyone hunt. The problem was that the other neighbour wouldn't let guys hunt, and the elk flourished.

Hey Ranch, I hunted the late season there. I contacted about 60+ landowner/leaseholders and was granted permission by every one of them. Maybe it's different if you have a deer or antelope tag or if the cattle are still out on the leases but my experience was really good when it came to access and help from them. One problem is there are thousands of square miles of "no hunting" land there where the elk are conditioned to hole up. They really need to open up the game preserve on the east side of the block to make a difference as well as have seasons extending into jan./February. That would help way more than just adding more tags per season. This has been discussed a ton on other threads.

[V_1]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Did you review the SSRP Draft?
https://landuse.alberta.ca/LandUse%2...2013-10-10.pdf


Wildland Parks allow hunting, and are under the authority of the Minister of Parks, who can close down hunting through a Ministerial order behind closed doors.

The conservation and land use levels of a Wildland Park are decent, but having Parks personnel holding the trigger to kill hunting is not the best for continuance of our lifestyle.

I hope people understand the scope of change being proposed here. Paid Access is being pushed for all Public Land under a disposition. There is NO Public Land that does not have a disposition on it, most have many different types (Gravel, Grazing, Minerals, Oil/Gas....)

As this Draft is being pushed forward, ALL land in Southern Alberta would require payment to private individuals for access to hunt.


All one needs to do is look south to see how Paid access has worked for the Resident hunter. It costs big bucks to chase bucks, bulls and birds....

Please take the time and fill out the workbook, and if you do not want hunters to be left alone to pay for wildlife and habitat, tell the government they will lose your vote if they proceed with Paid Access in any form.

SSRP Public Consultation Workbook.
https://www.banister.ab.ca/ssrpphase3/

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