alberta beef producers proposing pay to play

[norwestalta]

Originally Posted by bison

linky not worky

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

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by Gust

Nobody has yet explained why fishing is saddled with crop damage compensation.

Without getting into the history of how and why the ACA was formed....

The ACA combines our hunting and fishing licence revenue levies into the pot before being distributed to the various programs they administer. Hunting licence levy revenue likewise help fund fisheries programs....

[Gust]

Originally Posted by bobalong

It is the government that does not allow the problems to be taken care of for free, I agree, hunters/anglers license fees, should not be paying for this finally an answer on this question.

Thanks, but I will answer for my myself. Once again if the problem was cared for by the government, they actually own the elk/deer etc there would be no need to pass cost off to someone else, like landowners or hunters/anglers. The animals are not there to make sure landowners can charge for access, they are there because the government has restricted the numbers that can be taken, to provide hunting opportunities for you, I, and many others.
As you have read on many posts, elk specifically, were not natural to a lot areas, they were introduced by the government to provide more hunting opportunities. The government does provide funding for crop/bale damage but you feel that is unfair as well, not really sure what some of you guys want. Once again the government has miss-managed a resource.

I feel that it is unfair that it comes from hunting and fishing licences, if it came from an industry or department relevant to the industry impacted, then I'm ok with that. As mentioned in a long ago previous post, another thread should be started on money automatically being syphoned into gen revenue.

What they have done....again, is to create a situation where user groups, fight each other, instead of the user groups joining forces, and focusing on the real problem......govt. miss-management..

It was more directed at exmpler, and where were you 26 pages ago as I agree with what you replied.

[elkhunter11]

Read the link ace" posted land " you are fos as no petty trespass even existed not that many years ago . Who making up what now lololol add to the thread or go away

It's you that needs to read the post that you supplied the link to. We are talking trespassing while hunting, and petty trespass doesn't even apply to people that are lawfully hunting. However other forms of trespass do apply to people that are otherwise lawfully hunting.

From the information provided at your own link.

For example, it does not apply to individuals engaged in lawful hunting, fishing or trapping activities,

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

It's you that needs to read the post that you quoted. We are talking trespassing while hunting, and petty trespass doesn't apply to people that are lawfully hunting. However other forms of trespass do apply to people that are otherwise lawfully hunting.

Yes as I stated on" posted land " at one time in canada you colud not be charged unless not leaving when asked or commiting a crime ??? Is this not common knowlege.

[norwestalta]

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 unleash 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 think I understand what you're laying down. I have no idea how lucrative the paid hunting might be. I have no idea how much profit there is in paid access. There is a lot of private land with a lot of wildlife on it so competition might be high.
A new problem might arise then with the cows eating the elk feed. Just kidding

[Gust]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Without getting into the history of how and why the ACA was formed....

The ACA combines our hunting and fishing licence revenue levies into the pot before being distributed to the various programs they administer. Hunting licence levy revenue likewise help fund fisheries programs....

I'm very aware of what ACA does and I'll have to find the link again which will take awhile, but in a nutshell; a huge chunk of change goes into crop/livestock damage from ACA coffers. So much in fact that they have to pay last years damages thru this years licences and the fed-govt has finally kicked in for Alberta; like bobalo said it's really an issue of mismanagement. I think crop/livestock should be addressed via a relevant department or industry not Fishing Licences or Hunting Licences.

Who knows though, maybe the problem is that hunters have just become really bad at hunting over the last 25 years. joke, joke, joke.

[bobalong]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

Balderdash ,elk at one time ranged the praries "reintroduced"is the wording you needed.

I agree, thanks

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by norwestalta

By my math fg. The max fine is $2000 at exemplar's $25 per day you could hunt 80 days. Maybe if he likes you he could give you a 2 for 1 deal.

Novel idea, but I have miles of acess for free keeping critters undercontrol in our local area. Thanks though. 30 odd years of wandering ive only ever had one issue in canada and none ever any where else . Its kind of a doesn't apply to fg law. Theres a knack to dealing with people knock on wood im safe as houses.

[Gust]

Originally Posted by norwestalta

A new problem might arise then with the cows eating the elk feed. Just kidding

Humour keeps the debate on keel.

And we need to keep trespassing to another thread or we lose continuity in the current one, as crazy as that continuity is already. otherwise known as a derail.

[bobalong]

Originally Posted by Gust

It was more directed at exmpler, and where were you 26 pages ago as I agree with what you replied.

Sorry, I was in Sask burying my father in law. A farmer for more than 60 years.

[norwestalta]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

Yes as I stated on" posted land " at one time in canada you colud not be charged unless not leaving when asked or commiting a crime ??? Is this not common knowlege.

I think that you might be confused with the landowner not being able to hunt on his land if posted wives tail.

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by Gust

Humour keeps the debate on keel.

And we need to keep trespassing to another thread or we lose continuity in the current one, as crazy as that continuity is already. otherwise known as a derail.

Not entirely as with paid acess mearly being on the land is now a crime .

[Gust]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

Not entirely as with paid acess mearly being on the land is now a crime .

After 27 pages, it has been established that hunters are ok with being refused permission or being provided access. By bringing in the trespass equation,it detracts from a lot of discussion on the OP about charging for access (to address predator and damage) while asking for permission.

[norwestalta]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

Not entirely as with paid acess mearly being on the land is now a crime .

Always has been. Just I couldn't drag you out to the road anymore by your ear now.

Sorry gust I couldn't resist. Back on track?

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by Gust

I'm very aware of what ACA does and I'll have to find the link again which will take awhile, but in a nutshell; a huge chunk of change goes into crop/livestock damage from ACA coffers. So much in fact that they have to pay last years damages thru this years licences and the fed-govt has finally kicked in for Alberta; like bobalo said it's really an issue of mismanagement. I think crop/livestock should be addressed via a relevant department or industry not Fishing Licences or Hunting Licences.

Who knows though, maybe the problem is that hunters have just become really bad at hunting over the last 25 years. joke, joke, joke.

So you already understood why a portion of the fishing licence revenue is technically used for the compensation program....


I am confident to suggest that most hunters have no problem with contributing to a wildlife compensation program, but there is a thorn digging deep due to ACA revenues being the Sole source of revenue. Why are the non and anti-hunting segments of the public that desire and demand wildlife conservation not helping out?


Paid Access is an economic scheme that shows potential for PROFIT from wildlife. It is not possible to regulate this market to maintain fees at an even level with the cost of maintaining wildlife. That is why there are Compensation programs in lieu of allowing Paid access.

It is entirely feasible to develop expanded compensation, insurance, and tax credit programs to satisfy Landowner wildlife husbandry and economic loss. there is no NEED to go the Paid access route other than to provide an opportunity for people to Profit from this public resource.

[Gust]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

Not entirely as with paid acess mearly being on the land is now a crime .

G: Did you ask for permission to access?

FG: No I'd never ask or never pay as when my wee cousin caught his kilt on a sharp thistle in the glen over the dale in the time that the steward of the land an evil man who was the baron of mctavish house but with a fine lass of a daughter though she may have been a sheep it could have been the scotch, I digress,,,, when the kilt was caught next to my wee cousins sporin it was declared common law that barons and stewards must provide a trail free of thistle and lavender as lavender made the old spinster Deborah mctavish no relation to baron mctavish an evil baron with breath like an undercooked haggis which I don't mind with a toast of mead, made her break out in hives which the thistle helped but one must think of the wee lads first, tis is why as safe as my house I will not ask to enter your property.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by Gust

Like you expressed; if you don't put up the proper controls to keep wildlife off then there a pretty good chance that one will be bagged. What good is it mitigating the problem if you are compensated year after year after year but you do nothing to deal with it. You've even said you could call in people, who'll take care of the problem for free. But that's not good because should laws change and you can charge for access you would want wildlife to be on your property. So to do this, it would be best to let loss occur until that time the law changes, as the herd grows on your property and you can guarantee a hunter an animal.

And I still think that farmers should pay for farmer related damages through some kind of co-op amongst yourselves instead of saddling farming with unrelated industry/organisations.

I said if it were economically feasible I would put up the fence. It is not.

So you are OK with herd eradication by my native neighbors.

So you think that I am secretly luring these animals onto my property in hopes of turning my farm into a hunt farm. Give your head a shake.

Reclassify the animals as farm livestock and for farmers to use exclusively then you won't have to pay anything.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by Gust

I wanted to post it as neutral as possible as he expressed a distaste for his "Neighbours" earlier and I didn't want the topic to derail into....

Where did I express a distaste for my neighbors.

[Gust]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

So you already understood why a portion of the fishing licence revenue is technically used for the compensation program....


I am confident to suggest that most hunters have no problem with contributing to a wildlife compensation program, but there is a thorn digging deep due to ACA revenues being the Sole source of revenue. Why are the non and anti-hunting segments of the public that desire and demand wildlife conservation not helping out?

Paid Access is an economic scheme that shows potential for PROFIT from wildlife. It is not possible to regulate this market to maintain fees at an even level with the cost of maintaining wildlife. That is why there are Compensation programs in lieu of allowing Paid access.

It is entirely feasible to develop expanded compensation, insurance, and tax credit programs to satisfy Landowner wildlife husbandry and economic loss. there is no NEED to go the Paid access route other than to provide an opportunity for people to Profit from this public resource.

We're saying the same thing with different words.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by Gust

So why do my fishing & hunting license pay for damages if the problem of crop/livestock damage can be taken care for free?

It's ok, I'll answer for you; Because I need to make sure wildlife is there when I charge for hunting?

but you/exmpler said that the "neighbours" eradicated the wildlife on crown land surrounding your property,, and then said there is a herd of 5000 that are pests?

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

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by expmler

You represented that you were providing a service that you normally got paid for free of charge for access to the land.

And I'm accused of trolling.

Is gopher control not something that you might have to pay for were it not for the willingness of hunters to go out and shoot them for you...for free?

The point being that while I do happen to have the applicable licenses to charge for that service.... I do not prefessionally address gopher problems on ag lands.
Instead I ask permission to hunt them with a rifle and when granted do so at own expense.

I would not do that on any land where the owner then turned around and asked for a fee to access the land for hunting game in the fall.

I'd rather help a guy out that appreciated the effort enough to return the favour in kind...especially since culling the game population is...according to you.... in his best interest as well.

[expmler]

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?

So which solution do you think is best.

If the problem is a problem, would you be ok with the "neighbor" solution?

If the problem is an opportunity, would you be ok with it being a source of revenue for the farmer? (pay to play)

As for you solution could you tell me how to implement it on a quarter of hay land. 1\2mile X 1\2mile, no power. I am serious, if the cost is as you say less than 1 year crop loss.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by Big Daddy Badger

Is gopher control not something that you might have to pay for were it not for the willingness of hunters to go out and shoot them for you...for free?

The point being that while I do happen to have the applicable licenses to charge for that service.... I do not prefessionally address gopher problems on ag lands.
Instead I ask permission to hunt them with a rifle and when granted do so at own expense.

I would not do that on any land where the owner then turned around and asked for a fee to access the land for hunting game in the fall.

I'd rather help a guy out that appreciated the effort enough to return the favour in kind...especially since culling the game population is...according to you.... in his best interest as well.

No need for hunters.

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

[greylynx]

Originally Posted by expmler

Where did I express a distaste for my neighbors.

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.

[elkhunter11]

Reclassify the animals as farm livestock and for farmers to use exclusively then you won't have to pay anything.

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.

[expmler]

I will try to explain trespass laws here.

Right now hunters are allowed access without permission to any non posted land.

Hunters are allowed access to posted land with the permission of the land owner regardless of the wording of the signs.

If hunters are told to leave non posted land by the landowner they must leave.

The only non posted land hunters are not allowed on is land within 500 meters of a building, corral, or stockade occupied by either people or livestock.

Natives cannot practice subsistence hunting on any land except reserve or crown land.

Natives can practice subsistence hunting on private land with permission from the land owner.

[Gust]

Originally Posted by expmler

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.

And that's why lawyers who passed the bar with real estate law should not become mla's posted in charge with conservation and biology.

[elkhunter11]

Natives cannot practice subsistence hunting on any land except reserve or crown land.

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

[Gust]

Originally Posted by expmler

As for you solution could you tell me how to implement it on a quarter of hay land. 1\2mile X 1\2mile, no power. I am serious, if the cost is as you say less than 1 year crop loss.

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.