McKinnon Report Recommendation 16.

[Deer Hunter]

https://edmontonjournal.com/news/pol...ecommendations

Recommendation 16: Redefine the government’s inventory of land assets to include the broader public sector and create a definitive policy to clearly define surplus assets and a process for disposal of surplus assets. Increase the ability to dispose of assets to help offset the capital cost of new investments or provide revenue for the province.

What does this mean? Sale of public lands/leases?

[ruffy71]

I hope not. It was bad enough when the previous gov't was trying to block access. This government selling it outright is much worse.

[Deer Hunter]

Defineately a short term fix to a spending problem that isn't going away.

[CNP]

We don't know what it means. Asking the govt for clarification would be a way to understand the context of it...……………..before we somehow make our own conclusions on what it means.

[Drewski Canuck]

There is a strong underlying Neo Con Agenda from the PC Legacy.

For instance, Lease Pigeon Lake to a Private Co. They manage the fish, the access to the water, etc (Means they sell it for a profit) and the Govt gets paid and has no costs associated with enforcement of fishing regs, etc.

Crown land CAN BE SOLD, or in the case of a block of Crown Land for a whole subdivision in Fort Mac in 2007, just given away to a Developer.

Simple enough. Just sell the Prov Parks to a private firm, much like they tried to lease the smaller campgrounds on the highways to Private Operators.

But yes, Texas is 90 % Private land, and you see how well that works for the General Public!

We have already sold off the forests to big lumber cos who have the obligation for re reforesting on their dime, so why stop there?

Yes, be scared. If the Neo Cons get enough influence with the new / old PC's it will start with Grazing Leases, small Parks leased then sold, etc. The Peace River area has already been through one bout of sale of Crown Land under Stelmach, and it will continue.

Drewski

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by CNP

We don't know what it means. Asking the govt for clarification would be a way to understand the context of it...……………..before we somehow make our own conclusions on what it means.

It states in plain English that the intent is to make it easier for the government to sell or give away crown land.

[Deer Hunter]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

It states in plain English that the intent is to make it easier for the government to sell or give away crown land.

Yes. We should be very scared.

I wonder if the AFGA has a position on this?

[slough shark]

I’m not sure to be honest where I stand on a lot of this, the province has been pretty terrible “managers” of the land from almost every standpoint, the only advantage we have is access. Go hunting there and the numbers of animals are a fraction of what they are on similar private land, on top of that they let logging and o&g companies get away with a lot that ends up damaging the waterways. A lot of the leased land out in southern and eastern Alberta has terrible access anyways as several of the people who currently lease it treat it like private land anyways so may as well make them buy it if they are going to block access (and yes I know the rules but what actually happens is often different). Ideally what would happen is if the government would actually put some priority into actually managing the land and the resources but I’ve never seen that

[CNP]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

It states in plain English that the intent is to make it easier for the government to sell or give away crown land.

Instead of manipulating what is says why didn't you quote recommendation 16:

Recommendation 16: Redefine the government’s inventory of land assets to include the broader public sector and create a definitive policy to clearly define surplus assets and a process for disposal of surplus assets. Increase the ability to dispose of assets to help offset the capital cost of new investments or provide revenue for the province

It doesn't say what you said it says...……..but you'll get a lot of believers following your example.

Land assets are not necessarily land that has any viable use for outdoor recreation. A question asked to Minister Nixon may or may not improve the context of the meaning of the recommendation. Or amend or not even adopt the recommendation?

[Deer Hunter]

If you value public lands and reasonable recreational access it spells trouble.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by CNP

Instead of manipulating what is says why didn't you quote recommendation 16:



It doesn't say what you said it says...……..but you'll get a lot of believers following your example.

Land assets are not necessarily land that has any viable use for outdoor recreation. A question asked to Minister Nixon may or may not improve the context of the meaning of the recommendation. Or amend or not even adopt the recommendation?

Following your logic, your post doesn't mean what it says and I have to ask your wife for a translation...

[CNP]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Following your logic, your post doesn't mean what it says and I have to ask your wife for a translation...

Good one. I don't want the govt to sell off crown lands and grazing leases and thereby reduce outdoor opportunities. I just don't know the context of recommendation 16 is and I rarely speculate on stuff that I am not certain of. I'm not excited about the whole thing but for anyone who is, I would suggest that they find out what it is all about, instead of invoking the sky is falling clause. Maybe the sky is falling? Remains to be revealed by those who are concerned...

[Gear guy]

Wasnt it the Gov't idea to sell off part of the peace country?

[270WIN]

More privately owned land means less available for Indians and Metis to hunt on year round.
Something to consider.

[Birchcraft]

AFAIK, there has alwasy been a process for selling public land/leases. It involves an application where you have to present a need/reason then the proposed sale gets posted to allow any disputes to be brought forward, then if theres no problems i think it gets put to public tender or auction. Unless I'm mistaken.

[Trappingman]

Originally Posted by 270WIN

More privately owned land means less available for Indians and Metis to hunt on year round.
Something to consider.

What a racist POS you are be nice when people like you are not allowed in the bush anymore.... it’s coming

[270WIN]

Originally Posted by Trappingman

What a racist POS you are be nice when people like you are not allowed in the bush anymore.... it’s coming

If you read my post, you will see that there is absolutely nothing at all in it of a racist nature.
As a matter of fact, there is nothing in it to indicate whether or not I would be in favor of more public land being sold off to private interests.
It's never a good idea to jump to conclusions and start hurling insults around.

[Dean2]

Kenny has already said he wants to look at selling off at least 100,000 acres near Peace River. The AFGA is against this as am I and it has been raised on many fronts with the UCP. There have been a few threads here on AO on this very subject.

Whatever prop 16 really means you can bet it isn't going to be improving access for hunters or the general public. I own a fair amount of land and I still do NOT want to become another Texas! The average hunter is priced out of any pay to hunt model on private or leased land and that is not good for the future of our sport.

[teberle]

Originally Posted by Drewski Canuck

There is a strong underlying Neo Con Agenda from the PC Legacy.

For instance, Lease Pigeon Lake to a Private Co. They manage the fish, the access to the water, etc (Means they sell it for a profit) and the Govt gets paid and has no costs associated with enforcement of fishing regs, etc.

Crown land CAN BE SOLD, or in the case of a block of Crown Land for a whole subdivision in Fort Mac in 2007, just given away to a Developer.

Simple enough. Just sell the Prov Parks to a private firm, much like they tried to lease the smaller campgrounds on the highways to Private Operators.

But yes, Texas is 90 % Private land, and you see how well that works for the General Public!

We have already sold off the forests to big lumber cos who have the obligation for re reforesting on their dime, so why stop there?

Yes, be scared. If the Neo Cons get enough influence with the new / old PC's it will start with Grazing Leases, small Parks leased then sold, etc. The Peace River area has already been through one bout of sale of Crown Land under Stelmach, and it will continue.

Drewski

Exactly this. The ideology underpinning the disgusting McKinnon report is a sinister one, and it is shared by the current governing party. They will do whatever they can to increase private ownership for their rich buddies at the expense of public access, whether it's in education, health care, or indeed land use/management. We need to be watching how they implement this specific recommendation carefully, ready to object very loudly when the time comes.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by CNP

Good one. I don't want the govt to sell off crown lands and grazing leases and thereby reduce outdoor opportunities. I just don't know the context of recommendation 16 is and I rarely speculate on stuff that I am not certain of. I'm not excited about the whole thing but for anyone who is, I would suggest that they find out what it is all about, instead of invoking the sky is falling clause. Maybe the sky is falling? Remains to be revealed by those who are concerned...

Who besides you brought up falling skies?

Have your water checked....


The recommendation clearly states the suggestion is to make it easier for the government to sell/give away (dispose) of public lands. This is a directionally defined statement, advising to increase the disposal rate/volume of Our land.

[3blade]

McKinnon is a disease, a political operative and sellout who somehow became an expert on everything despite doing and knowing nothing for her entire life.

Kenney hired her to spout ideas he was already pushing ie the northern land sell off. Blue ribbon panel my arse. Right back to wasting money just like the old PCs. Remember potato-gate? More of the same, unfortunately with a bigger majority/mandate. The public outcry and AFGA managed to put enough pressure to change minds last time but this government doesn’t seem to listen to any conservation minded concerns

Hard to believe they don’t care about hunting access

[Knotter]

The budget states we will follow the recommendations in the MacKinnon Panel Report.

As pointed out earlier in the thread it has some ominous language about defining a process to sell public lands.

Time to write some letters and make some ears ring.

Here is the recommendation:

Recommendation 16: Redefine the government’s inventory of land assets to include the broader public sector and create a definitive policy to clearly define surplus assets and a process for disposal of surplus assets.
Providing an increased ability to core government and the broader public sector to dispose of surplus assets can act as an offset to the capital cost of new investments or provide revenue for the province.

[saskbooknut]

Selling the farm, to fund short term deficits of funding, has never been a good idea.
Holding a land base in trust has always been a Provincial responsibility.
What happens when there are no assets left to sell?

[Nyksta]

Originally Posted by saskbooknut

Selling the farm, to fund short term deficits of funding, has never been a good idea.
Holding a land base in trust has always been a Provincial responsibility.
What happens when there are no assets left to sell?

As long as alberta keep coddling drunks and addicts with the emergency room bed and breakfast and police/ambulance taxi services, the money will continue to be redirected from every other part of the system.

[Bigjohn87]

Originally Posted by Deer Hunter

https://edmontonjournal.com/news/pol...ecommendations


What does this mean? Sale of public lands/leases?

Could this not be in reference to land/buildings they own in towns and villages? Was there not just some hubbub in High River about the government having property there and not paying their fee that’s in place in lieu of taxes?

Has anyone emailed Jason Nixon about this ?

[Bigjohn87]

This is what Jason Nixon said just yesterday in reference to this campground closures

“We are not selling any Crown or public land — period,” Alberta Environment and Parks Minister Jason Nixon said Wednesday afternoon.

So this should pretty much end the speculation

[Dean2]

Nixon is known as a good guy and straight shooter. Hopefully this means that Kenny has changed his mind because both him and the McKinnon report were clearly aligned to sell large tracts of Crown land. He outright said it before and after the election. If they have now changed their minds then this is very good and one more indication that this government is at least trying to listen to the people.

[FCLightning]

Originally Posted by Bigjohn87

This is what Jason Nixon said just yesterday in reference to this campground closures




So this should pretty much end the speculation

That quote was simply in regards to the changes to the Parks and PRA's. It means nothing in the context of other crown land holdings.

[RaptorRed]

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canad...id=hplocalnews

Nixon, is saying that the land will just go back to being crown land.

[Knotter]

Originally Posted by Bigjohn87

Could this not be in reference to land/buildings they own in towns and villages? Was there not just some hubbub in High River about the government having property there and not paying their fee that’s in place in lieu of taxes?

Has anyone emailed Jason Nixon about this ?

If that’s what it was meant to be then that’s what it would say. “Land assets” is more broad.

Nixon is a good person to ask to clarify. I doubt they will suddenly lift dispositions on the campgrounds but its a good question.