Open Spaces ? Afga Resolution

Originally Posted by chevy427

Did you report them to F & W?

F&W said that since they were only charging for the house that there was nothing that could be done. Apparently they will let people on if no one is renting the house but I couldn't seem to get a date when that was.

Originally Posted by Waxy

I assume you reported this and there's an official complaint regarding this landowner on record with Fish & Wildlife?

Was there any follow up with F & W regarding the incident?

Waxy

Read my response to 427 and bubba's response.....if you draw a turkey tag I can provide you with their info if you like....I'm sure they'll happily let you on without renting the place.

Originally Posted by sheephunter

F&W said that since they were only charging for the house that there was nothing that could be done. Apparently they will let people on if no one is renting the house but I couldn't seem to get a date when that was.

Thanks for the info. That is crap in my mind to.

But maybe there was a problem with someone shooting around the house scaring city people renting it. Just thinking out loud.

Originally Posted by bubbasno1

Technically it is not charging for hunting. Unethical yes but not illegal. They are charging you for access not for the turkey. The choice is always there to say no thanks I will go hunt somewhere else. I personally believe it should be illegal to charge people to acces your property as well. You can either let peole on or not but charging for access is not right in my mind.

Sorry missed part of your post. Yes he did say that. He also said outfitters were paying for exclusive access to property. He also said if OS does not go through he is calling the indians/metis in to wipe out the wildlife on his land. This gentleman is one shining example of morales and ethics.

Bubba

So paid hunting is going on around Pincher then?

Originally Posted by chevy427

Thanks for the info. That is crap in my mind to.

But maybe there was a problem with someone shooting around the house scaring city people renting it. Just thinking out loud.

No, the guest house was being rented by the day by hunters from what I could tell. There were a few days I could hunt if I rented the house but there didn't seem to be any days left if I didn't.

[LongDraw]

Funny how F&W did not pursue the cabin issue, yet landowners have been told they cannot charge to park? I really don't see any difference?

[Duk Dog]

Originally Posted by bubbasno1

Technically it is not charging for hunting. Unethical yes but not illegal. They are charging you for access not for the turkey. The choice is always there to say no thanks I will go hunt somewhere else. I personally believe it should be illegal to charge people to acces your property as well. You can either let peole on or not but charging for access is not right in my mind.

Sorry missed part of your post. Yes he did say that. He also said outfitters were paying for exclusive access to property. He also said if OS does not go through he is calling the indians/metis in to wipe out the wildlife on his land. This gentleman is one shining example of morales and ethics.

Bubba

You've hit the nail on the head, and what you have pointed out is a problem. Although you know what is really going on there are loop holes and ways around it.

[LongDraw]

Originally Posted by bubbasno1

I personally believe it should be illegal to charge people to acces your property as well. You can either let peole on or not but charging for access is not right in my mind.
Bubba

Brent,

Is this in reference to hunting and fishing, or just access in general?

Originally Posted by bubbasno1

Technically it is not charging for hunting. Unethical yes but not illegal. They are charging you for access not for the turkey. The choice is always there to say no thanks I will go hunt somewhere else. I personally believe it should be illegal to charge people to acces your property as well. You can either let peole on or not but charging for access is not right in my mind.

Sorry missed part of your post. Yes he did say that. He also said outfitters were paying for exclusive access to property. He also said if OS does not go through he is calling the indians/metis in to wipe out the wildlife on his land. This gentleman is one shining example of morales and ethics.

Bubba

Not sure you have that right bubba....if they were charging for turkey access that would be illegal as charging for any hunting access is illegal. They were renting me a room...with a view.....lol

[LongDraw]

I know for a fact that landowners have been told by F&W to stop charging a parking fee. How is charging for a cabin any different?

Originally Posted by LongDraw

I know for a fact that landowners have been told by F&W to stop charging a parking fee. How is charging for a cabin any different?

Not sure...just know what I was told.

I guess I should be more specific here. It was never outright stated that I had to rent the house to hunt, it's just that there were no days open to hunting when I first asked but then when they heard I was from out of town and might need accommodations, suddenly there were several days open. You draw the conclusion.

I'm not trying to get anyhow in trouble here but when peole start saying they've lived in PC for years and have never heard of landowners asking for fees to hunt....they either don't get out much or aren't being completly up front. Heck, you heard it at the January meeting and you don't even live down there!

Originally Posted by sheephunter

So paid hunting is going on around Pincher then?

I can not answer this question honestly. I have know first hand experience. I only have the landowners comments to go on. If you want PM me and I will give you his name and you can call him directly.

Bubba

[Jamie]

At the end of the day, can you really stop someone from doing something with the land they own?

The cabin thing is effective.
Or how about this one.
You must have a guide to hunt on our land. BTW a guide will cost you x amount of $$ per point or animal.
There are a million and one ways around this rule. I would say it is imposible to enforce.
And we all should consider ourselfs lucky we have had it so good for so long.

We as sportsmen must strive to find away to make landowners happy.. Or they will do as they please.
OS is not the proper way.

Jamie

Originally Posted by LongDraw

Brent,

Is this in reference to hunting and fishing, or just access in general?

I am going to have to think this one over. Right now I would say for access in general.

Bubba

Originally Posted by Jamie

At the end of the day, can you really stop someone from doing something with the land they own?

The cabin thing is effective.
Or how about this one.
You must have a guide to hunt on our land. BTW a guide will cost you x amount of $$ per point or animal.
There are a million and one ways around this rule. I would say it is imposible to enforce.
And we all should consider ourselfs lucky we have had it so good for so long.

We as sportsmen must strive to find away to make landowners happy.. Or they will do as they please.
OS is not the proper way.

Jamie

I agree Jamie, but I think what is happening here is the greed of a few.

Most landowners are good if you treat them good. Some are jerks and are going to wreck it for everyone.

[LongDraw]

Originally Posted by bubbasno1

I am going to have to think this one over. Right now I would say for access in general.

Bubba

Not trying to put you on the spot with this, but I was just thinking of activities (non-hunting) that people need a piece of land to do. Paintball came to mind.

They charge a trespass fee of sorts for access.

Originally Posted by bubbasno1

I can not answer this question honestly. I have know first hand experience. I only have the landowners comments to go on. If you want PM me and I will give you his name and you can call him directly.

Bubba

I actually know him already but thanks.

Originally Posted by sheephunter

I'm not trying to get anyhow in trouble here but when peole start saying they've lived in PC for years and have never heard of landowners asking for fees to hunt....they either don't get out much or aren't being completly up front. Heck, you heard it at the January meeting and you don't even live down there!

Not sure if you are refering to me in this quote or not, but I never said I had not heard of landowners asking for fee's. I said "I" have never paid a fee or even been asked to pay a fee (except for that old bugger at Payne).

Bubba

Originally Posted by LongDraw

Not trying to put you on the spot with this, but I was just thinking of activities (non-hunting) that people need a piece of land to do. Paintball came to mind.

They charge a trespass fee of sorts for access.

Good point. I will really have to give this some thought.

Bubba

[209x50]

A big complaint we have all heard is that the unelected are making the laws. This is in reference to unelected judges handing down decisions that change the law.
Now does the wildlife act still seem like an impenetrable shield ?

Originally Posted by bubbasno1

Not sure if you are refering to me in this quote or not, but I never said I had not heard of landowners asking for fee's. I said "I" have never paid a fee or even been asked to pay a fee (except for that old bugger at Payne).

Bubba

Just one of those general comments bubba...nothing personal but I've only tried to hunt around PC a half dozen times or so and I've been asked to rent houses, pay parking fees and to pay per antler point. Guess I need to think about changing aftershave!

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Just one of those general comments bubba...nothing personal but I've only tried to hunt around PC a half dozen times or so and I've been asked to rent houses, pay parking fees and to pay per antler point. Guess I need to think about changing aftershave!

Must be the way you hold your mouth ? Or maybe we just do not like outsiders

Bubba

[lazy ike]

Originally Posted by Duk Dog

You've hit the nail on the head, and what you have pointed out is a problem. Although you know what is really going on there are loop holes and ways around it.

More importantly the practice is already there for some landowners with in the grey areas created under the current system. Somebody explain how OS is going to make things better for a resident hunter?

[lazy ike]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Just one of those general comments bubba...nothing personal but I've only tried to hunt around PC a half dozen times or so and I've been asked to rent houses, pay parking fees and to pay per antler point. Guess I need to think about changing aftershave!

My experiences over the last 3 years have been the exact opposite but I have heard rumours.

[209x50]

Originally Posted by bubbasno1

Or maybe we just do not like outsiders

Bubba

Yep, that was plenty obvious when I had 3 kids all come of age to hunt, while we lived there. Thank God for people Lloyd Sproule and Lee Hockstien who gave us access to their lands. There was one other fellow who's name escapes me but the rest were easily the rudest people I've ever met in Canada and that is saying something.

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Or better yet, they could sell their land to developers so it could be subdivided and then it would be lost forever to wildlife and hunters. Personally, I don't mind them getting a few tax concessions to indulge their lifestyle.

This comment bothers me. I have heard this comment time and again. If we do not do something developers are going to come in and subdivide or develop the land. I could possibly see this in 300 but not in 108. I know of at least one attempt to subdivide and sell lots in 300 that failed miserably. Great view of the mountains, close to Waterton, subdivided, everything you could dream of. Not 1 lot sold. What developer is interested in land in 108? If they are Why? Not much call for a subdivision on the ridge as far as I can tell.

Wow that was interesting. Type my response come back and all these posts are gone. OH well still stand by my above statement.

Bubba

Originally Posted by bubbasno1

This comment bothers me. I have heard this comment time and again. If we do not do something developers are going to come in and subdivide or develop the land. I could possibly see this in 300 but not in 108. I know of at least one attempt to subdivide and sell lots in 300 that failed miserably. Great view of the mountains, close to Waterton, subdivided, everything you could dream of. Not 1 lot sold. What developer is interested in land in 108? If they are Why? Not much call for a subdivision on the ridge as far as I can tell.

Wow that was interesting. type my response come back and all these posts are gone. OH well still stand by my above statement.

Bubba

I think there's call for subdivision everywhere bubba and that demand is growing. Maybe not in 108 right now but definitely in areas surrounding Edmonton, Calgary, Red Deer and any other centre. My comments had nothing to do with OSA but everything about many ranchers living a lifestyle that is far below their net worth and without that desire, much of Alberta's precious fish and wildlife resources would be in deep trouble. As would access for hunters. As I said, this discussion had nothing to do with OSA and everything to do with family ranches and a lifestyle. It's a bit out of context now that LongDraw and I figured out what each other were talking about but I'm a big supporter of the family ranch and those hard working people's dedication to a lifestyle they hold dear.

[Canuck44]

I recieved this response from Ted Morton today by email. Has anyone else recieved similar ones? If done right this could be ok.

Thank you for your recent e-mail concerning the Open Spaces Alberta Pilot Program.

You passionately state your opposition to Open Spaces because you fear it will undermine public hunting. If it did, I too would oppose Open Spaces.

If you think that all Open Spaces does is give tags to rich landowners to sell to the highest bidder, then you are right to be angry. I’d be angry too.

But the facts are different. Open Spaces has the potential to significantly enhance the quality of public hunting and start to rebuild the declining numbers of hunters in Alberta—the real key to protecting the future of our hunting heritage.

I know that there is a lot of partial and misleading information circulating about the Open Spaces initiative, so let me try to give you a more complete picture of what this pilot project is about.

Open Spaces Alberta is a pilot program that aims to improve and expand public hunting by providing increased access, increased habitat and increased wildlife populations. The proposed pilot project would include only two areas in southwestern Alberta (Wildlife Management Units 108 and 300) and last only five years. Stakeholder groups have been engaged in the process and will continue to be throughout the five-year trial period. A provincial-level stakeholder group has recommended a general policy framework and proposed pilot areas. Much work, including detailed management agreements, remains to be done in pilot areas by local planning groups that include hunters.

During the trial, consultants will be contracted to monitor hunter satisfaction, access to private land, existing habitat, and landowner satisfaction. At the end of five years, Fish and Wildlife Division will consult with all stakeholders to determine whether program goals have been achieved and whether the program should be expanded or terminated.

Open Spaces has two components. The Recreation Access Management Program (RAMP) will provide an access management system that connects hunters and landowners more efficiently. RAMP would compensate landowners for increasing/improving habitat on their lands and allowing public access for hunting and angling. The compensation would come from the Government, not hunters, and participation would be voluntary for landowners. The compensation would be based on a “hunter-day” schedule, and would vary depending on the size of the property and the quality of the habitat. There would be a maximum dollar cap on how much a landowner could receive for the season.

This approach recognizes that Alberta’s ranchers and farmers are our partners in wildlife stewardship, not our adversaries. While deer, elk, ducks and pheasants are and will always remain public goods, the habitat they depend upon is often managed by private landowners. On private lands, which comprise over 85 percent of southern and central Alberta, decisions about habitat management are at the discretion of the landowner. If we want that habitat to remain or be restored—whether it be sloughs, woodlots or brush-patches—and if we want public access to increase, we can’t just leave all the costs and inconvenience on the shoulders of landowners.

This cost-sharing approach is also the foundation for the second part of Open Spaces—Hunting for Habitat. This program would focus primarily on elk, but could include other species, as determined by a local planning group. It would involve voluntary cooperatives of mid- to large-size landowners in the WMU. Only privately-owned, deeded land would be eligible. Crown grazing leases remain open to public access under the current rules.

The goal is to increase public access, wildlife habitat, herd size and the number of tags available to public hunters. The current management strategy in WMUs 108 and 300 is to SUPPRESS the number of elk by focusing the public hunt on cow elk. We do this because the elk herds cost local ranchers thousands of dollars by competing with their cattle for forage, knocking down fences, and damaging crops.

Under Hunting for Habitat, the strategy would be to significantly INCREASE the size of the herd by shifting the hunt to bulls and building up the cow (reproducing) population. On Milk River Ridge, for example, this management strategy could increase the herd from its current size of one hundred elk to a thousand or more elk. Over time, this would mean hundreds of additional elk tags available through the public draw process.

Would participating landowners get some of these new tags? Yes, approximately 10-15 per cent of the total, to sell the same way that licensed outfitters now sell their allotted tags. This is how landowners would be compensated for the costs of the additional elk on their land.

But the vast majority of NEW tags—over 80 percent—would go to public hunters through the normal draw process. And public hunters would have guaranteed access to participating ranches—many of which have been posted “No Hunting, No Trespassing” for decades. It seems to me that this is a darn good trade-off for resident hunters like you and me.

There would be other benefits as well. An elk herd of this size would become a tourist attraction during the summer months. This would further strengthen the local economy, and also introduce city-dwellers to rural Alberta and environmentally-sustainable land-uses—which include hunting, as well as good range management.

During my time as Minister of Sustainable Resource Development, I have supported a number of new initiatives to improve public hunting and strengthen the tradition of hunting in Alberta. In addition to Open Spaces, these include expanding Sunday hunting; an official provincial hunting day; new opportunities for youth hunters; and MLA Len Mitzel’s bill on a Hunting Heritage Act.

Open Spaces is only one of these initiatives, but, in my mind, one of the most important. Why? Because it begins to build new bridges between the public hunting community and private landowners, between those of us who own Alberta’s wildlife and those who take care of the habitat on which our wildlife and fisheries flourish. I believe that this new spirit of cooperation will be a win for habitat, a win for wildlife, and a win for Alberta hunters and anglers.

I hope this answers some of your questions about Open Spaces. Even if I haven’t persuaded you, I hope you will keep an open mind and support the pilot projects so we can see if they work. If they don’t work, we can terminate them. If we don’t try, we’ll never know.

Honourable Ted Morton

Minister



For more information about Open Spaces, please visit http://poli.ucalgary.ca/wildlifestewardship/

P.S. I would also recommend checking out the great article in the November, 2007 issue of National Geographic, “Hunters: For the Love of the Land.” It documents the important conservation role of voluntary hunter organizations like the Alberta Fish and Game Association and Ducks Unlimited in protecting and restoring the habitat on which wildlife depends.

The article is available on line at:

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ng...oole-text.html

Please share this positive message with your hunting buddies and with the non-hunters in your circle of friends. We need more non-hunters to know about the good work we do. Or in the words of National Geographic, “The irony is that many species might not survive at all were it not for the hunters …. The nation’s 12.5 million hunters have become essential partners in wildlife management.”

Ya, I think nearly everyone that voiced their concerns to Morton over OSA received that exact or similar letter.

[Vindalbakken]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

When I had a turkey tag last year I was told that I had to rent the guest house to get permission.

If the statement was worded as relayed here then it would most definitely be a chargeable offense under the Wildlife Act. It would be better that the land is closed to hunting than to have this type of BS going on. Swear a statement to an officer and get on with it.

Sorry folks - I posted without reading the next page. Statement addressed.