alberta beef producers proposing pay to play

[expmler]

Originally Posted by greylynx

I have a distaste for my neighbors. They chase the game off my property on to theirs. They and their relatives to have a right to hunt everything because of .....never mind.

You really need to read what I said again. I could have natives take care of the elk because it is legal for them to do it.

I said that native hunters hunting on crown land have driven them ONTO my land.

Those are simply the facts I never expressed any disdain towards their hunting rights.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by expmler

No need for hunters.

Poison. Simple, cheap and way more effective than hunters.

If you say so.

That option is not desirable to all and poison is a pretty generic term.
Its also something that is subject to regulation and regulation change.

I'd look to a fumigant or blasting them with gas twas I you.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

So now you want the government to turn over ownership of the public owned animals to you? Wouldn't that be a nice deal for you.

I was responding to GUST'S statement wildlife damage should be paid for by farm organizations hot a portion of hunting licenses.

I was saying that if the animals causing the damage were put under my control I would not expect hunters to pay for damage. Just as I don't expect anyone to pay for damage to their vehicle if the hit one of my cows that gets out onto the road. My animal=my responsibility.

I do not own the wildlife, but GUST wants me to pay for any damage they do to my property.

I did not mean all animals everywhere.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by Gust

Bales not standing crop. I'll draft the plan and we'll talk later. Most of the pieces for it are probably on your farm already.

So should I get compensation for everything other than bales?

[expmler]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

They can also practice subsistence hunting on private land, if they have permission.

You are right, I forgot.

Added it to my post

Thanks.

[Red Bullets]

Originally Posted by expmler

The gov't has decided that the animals are valuable to you so they stand in the way of eradication which is what would happen if it wasn't illegal. Just like wiping out a colony of gophers on a parcel of land.
As a trade off for that they are willing to compensate farmers so they are not negatively effected by the animals. They have decided that these animals are valuable to a certain group (hunters) and it is in their best interest to sustain the population. The gov't decided that hunters should bear some of the cost of
sustaining the population.

The natives have driven what animals they didn't kill onto private property where they are not hunted year round. Thus there are very few on crown land because the inhabit private land

The government biologists also recognise that the animals are valuable to a balanced healthy ecosystem. There are more than just hunting groups with interest in the health of the animal populations.

[Gust]

Originally Posted by expmler

So should I get compensation for everything other than bales?

If someone has a solution for standing crop, kudos. I just have a solution for bales. If part of the problem stops a drain on fee's and taxes (what all true fiscal conservatives want) then we should be all over it.

And I still think the money for crop compensation should come from a Prov and/or Fed department and/or industry related to farming and cattle.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by Big Daddy Badger

If you say so.

That option is not desirable to all and poison is a pretty generic term.
Its also something that is subject to regulation and regulation change.

I'd look to a fumigant or blasting them with gas twas I you.

Pretty simple actually.

The RM supplies it free, you mix it with some oats in a gallon pail. Put a spoonful in the hole and voila! No more gophers.

A couple hours and a quarter of land is cleared.

I would say you are getting much more benefit from shooting them than the farmer is.
Like I said before if they are really a problem he wants to get rid of This method is far more effective.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by Gust

If someone has a solution for standing crop, kudos. I just have a solution for bales. If part of the problem stops a drain on fee's and taxes (what all true fiscal conservatives want) then we should be all over it.

And I still think the money for crop compensation should come from a Prov and/or Fed department and/or industry related to farming and cattle.

So what if anything do you think you should contribute to the sustainability of the game you hunt.

I bet there are many non hunting tax payers that think they should not have to pay anything towards a resource they don't benefit from.

[Red Bullets]

Originally Posted by expmler

Pretty simple actually.

The RM supplies it free, you mix it with some oats in a gallon pail. Put a spoonful in the hole and voila! No more gophers.

A couple hours and a quarter of land is cleared.

I would say you are getting much more benefit from shooting them than the farmer is.
Like I said before if they are really a problem he wants to get rid of This method is far more effective.

Although I am on the fence as far as poisoning gophers, it probably less residual than having the land replenished with a few pounds of spent lead from the 22 gun toting gopher hunters every year. If a pasture is shot up for gophers over many years, there would be some lead contamination to some degree.


so verminicide vs lead bullet ground contamination...hmm

[expmler]

Originally Posted by Red Bullets

The government biologists also recognise that the animals are valuable to a balanced healthy ecosystem. There are more than just hunting groups with interest in the health of the animal populations.

Agreed, and those groups also contribute to the sustainability of the population through their tax dollars.

Gust wanted to know why hunters should pay, that's why I limited my response to hunters.

[Gust]

Originally Posted by expmler

I bet there are many non hunting tax payers that think they should not have to pay anything towards a resource they don't benefit from.

Oh, well that's guaranteed.

I'm signing out of this thread by saying;

Draw a correlation between fishing licences and crop damage (which I'm sure YOU can) and you have won the argument.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by Red Bullets

Although I am on the fence as far as poisoning gophers, it probably less residual than having the land replenished with a few pounds of spent lead from the 22 gun toting gopher hunters every year. If a pasture is shot up for gophers over many years, there would be some lead contamination to some degree.


so verminicide vs lead bullet ground contamination...hmm

The poison is gone and not transferred once it is eaten by the gopher. Your dog could eat the poisoned gopher and suffer no effects. The gopher eats all of the grain and goes down it's hole and dies.

[bobalong]

Originally Posted by expmler

So what if anything do you think you should contribute to the sustainability of the game you hunt.

I bet there are many non hunting tax payers that think they should not have to pay anything towards a resource they don't benefit from.

Sticking my nose in here maybe, but personally I would gladly contribute to a fund specifically for game counts. Similar problem with fishing, only in that case, they do not know the actual number of anglers.

I think the government is trying to manage the resources, and in the case of hunting, they don't have accurate or up to date (yearly) numbers. I do not know what the cost of completing game counts every year, or at least every second year, on the entire province would be (probably someone out there that does though), but believe that the situation has arrived to consider this a necessity.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by Gust

Oh, well that's guaranteed.

I'm signing out of this thread by saying;

Draw a correlation between fishing licences and crop damage (which I'm sure YOU can) and you have won the argument.

I think that has more to do with gov't administration than anything. Fish and wildlife is probably all one department.

Not a win\lose situation. I think when we can discuss a subject it is win\win.

When you refuse to have dialog it is lose\lose.

Nice talking to you. If you are ever hunting in zone 45 in SASK look me up.

[Gust]

Originally Posted by expmler

So what if anything do you think you should contribute to the sustainability of the game you hunt.

Well I guess farmers could actually use all those subsidies/grants to keep the mice like elk/deer/antelope off their land and in areas where natural predation and natural food thins them out.

But we're back at the management side again, which bobalong defined quite well a few pages back which you missed apparently.

outta here, have fun guys.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by Gust

Well I guess farmers could actually use all those subsidies/grants to keep the mice like elk/deer/antelope off their land and in areas where natural predation and natural food thins them out.

But we're back at the management side again, which bobalong defined quite well a few pages back which you missed apparently.

outta here, have fun guys.

Haters gonna hate

[norwestalta]

Originally Posted by Gust

Well I guess farmers could actually use all those subsidies/grants to keep the mice like elk/deer/antelope off their land and in areas where natural predation and natural food thins them out.

But we're back at the management side again, which bobalong defined quite well a few pages back which you missed apparently.

outta here, have fun guys.

I don't think any landowner has a problem with feeding the wildlife. The problem is when it interferes with their livelihood. When you've got enough bales to feed your cattle herd. It sure smarts when the wildlife come in and destroy your feed stocks because now you've got to buy feed from some where else at $50 + a bale as well as transporting.

[greylynx]

Originally Posted by norwestalta

I don't think any landowner has a problem with feeding the wildlife. The problem is when it interferes with their livelihood. When you've got enough bales to feed your cattle herd. It sure smarts when the wildlife come in and destroy your feed stocks because now you've got to buy feed from some where else at $50 + a bale as well as transporting.

Will those lost bales put you out of farming?

How many bales do you lose a year to wildlife?

What are the total number of bales you feed your animals with in a given year?

You can even put in lost oats eaten by bears. How about a number for that sort of damage.

[bison]

Originally Posted by Gust

What I'm saying is and it's part of the conundrum of this thread;

Is the problem the problem?

Or is the problem an opportunity?

If the first question is addressed, then the problem can be addressed via "neighbours" more effectively than without having to dip into ACA money to pay for the problem year after year.

If the second question is addressed, then the problem - if maintained - can be another source of revenue for the farmer.

You know after posting the potential for an idea to deal with the problem at less than the cost of 1 years feed-crop loss, not one farmer has PM'd me to discuss the solution. Therefore, the second question, stands and farmers aren't interested in a solution unless it can become a revenue stream.

Which then asks the question of; are farmers really interested in farming crop or farming elk/deer/antelope?

I would say yes to the crop farming.

i would compare them to the shoplifters

[bison]

Originally Posted by norwestalta

If you pm your email I could try email it to you. Working these computers for me is kind of like humping with some else's pecker

never mind,..i found it.

[pickrel pat]

Originally Posted by norwestalta

I don't think any landowner has a problem with feeding the wildlife. The problem is when it interferes with their livelihood. When you've got enough bales to feed your cattle herd. It sure smarts when the wildlife come in and destroy your feed stocks because now you've got to buy feed from some where else at $50 + a bale as well as transporting.

could farmers not bale up a few extra bales in anticipation of lost feed do to wildlife? I guess in drought years and what not, it could be a chore making enough hay for the cattle to sustain through the winter....

[norwestalta]

Originally Posted by greylynx

Will those lost bales put you out of farming?

How many bales do you lose a year to wildlife?

What are the total number of bales you feed your animals with in a given year?

You can even put in lost oats eaten by bears. How about a number for that sort of damage.

Can't say for sure grey. I graze cattle in the summer and sell my hay. There is not enough money in it for me to feed over the winter. I do reasonable well with my arrangement and my day job. Not much overhead and I'm not much of a gambler on the cattle market.

[norwestalta]

Originally Posted by pickrel pat

could farmers not bale up a few extra bales in anticipation of lost feed do to wildlife? I guess in drought years and what not, it could be a chore making enough hay for the cattle to sustain through the winter....

Absolutely you bale as much as you can. Every year is differ. Feed straw what ever you can but I don't think you understand the damage a herd of 20 elk can do let alone 120. I'll try to get some pictures to show you or maybe someone has got some.

[norwestalta]

A couple years ago when I decided I wouldn't have cows over the winter but kept 100 or so bales back for spring the elk moved in. All the bales around the outside of my stack were destroyed. Ended up burning them to clean up the mess and sold the not bad ones for spring$5 a price. Lesson was learned. I'll sell all my hay and buy back in the spring.

[JRsMav]

Originally Posted by expmler

I was responding to GUST'S statement wildlife damage should be paid for by farm organizations hot a portion of hunting licenses.

I was saying that if the animals causing the damage were put under my control I would not expect hunters to pay for damage. Just as I don't expect anyone to pay for damage to their vehicle if the hit one of my cows that gets out onto the road. My animal=my responsibility.

I do not own the wildlife, but GUST wants me to pay for any damage they do to my property.

I did not mean all animals everywhere.

Absolutely gust wants you to pay for damages caused by public wildlife. Much the same as me paying out of my pocket for flooding to my house. How inept are you?

[JRsMav]

Originally Posted by norwestalta

Absolutely you bale as much as you can. Every year is differ. Feed straw what ever you can but I don't think you understand the damage a herd of 20 elk can do let alone 120. I'll try to get some pictures to show you or maybe someone has got some.

Valid points. Nothing to do with charging hunters land access however. Again, just because youre a lazy pee poor businessman/farmer, doesnt afford you the right to charge.

[norwestalta]

Originally Posted by JRsMav

Valid points. Nothing to do with charging hunters land access however. Again, just because youre a lazy pee poor businessman/farmer, doesnt afford you the right to charge.

Pretty bold statement smarty. Never claimed to be a great business man/farmer but I do pretty good for myself. It's the guys like you that if I where to charge access wouldn't be able to pay enough to set foot on my property. Might even get a little attitude adjustment when I'm telling you to go pound sand. Believe me I think I'm man enough are you?

[expmler]

Originally Posted by JRsMav

Absolutely gust wants you to pay for damages caused by public wildlife. Much the same as me paying out of my pocket for flooding to my house. How inept are you?

I would be willing to help pay your damages if it was gov't policy to flood you out every year for my benefit. I would also expect free access to you house.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by JRsMav

Valid points. Nothing to do with charging hunters land access however. Again, just because youre a lazy pee poor businessman/farmer, doesnt afford you the right to charge.

Maybe if you were a little more ambitious or smarter you could earn enough to be able to afford to pay for access.