Newest information on open spaces.

[packhuntr]

Sorry there Longdraw, ive been going since 2:30 this morning. I was wrong, i must have misread it. I went back to see what had flagged in my mind after reading it and posting. I had read that the ABA is for a U.S. style system where the landowner is compensated on the basis of habitat. I posted thinking they were proponents for OS proposals....My bad speed reading skills again. Sorry fellas. I best get on to bed...Im gonna end up in the middle of a sh*t fight i wont come outa if i dont rest my eyes. It appears as though ive begun to see things. Keep a strain on er.

[LongDraw]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

I can't help but have the feeling that I'm a bit out of the loop on Open Spaces and there is an entire sharing of info that I'm unaware of. These comments were made by Ike and LongDraw respectively today...



How can I become more informed and privvy to this communication and perhaps not have to bother members here for what some of you view as old and redundant info.

Thanks!

All of the info that I am aware of has been posted on this forum in one way or another. Same goes with the minutes of the last meeting.

The meeting in Calgary was open door. When I arrived there were no more chairs, someone made a call and 10 more chairs were brought in. Provided lunch to boot.

[LongDraw]

No need for an apology Pack!

Originally Posted by LongDraw

All of the info that I am aware of has been posted on this forum in one way or another. Same goes with the minutes of the last meeting.

The meeting in Calgary was open door. When I arrived there were no more chairs, someone made a call and 10 more chairs were brought in. Provided lunch to boot.

Hmmm...well I must have missed a few posts...

So what are the other forms of communication you reference that don't take place on this board.....I still feel out of the loop the way you are saying everything is old hat. I never found out about the meeting until the night it happened....funny that was never posted here. I never knew about the minutes either until that person came up to me at the show on the weekend yet many seem to have received them last week and again no mention here. You see why it seems a bit of an information vaccuum exists here. I'd like to find out about things before they happen like some of you seem to be and not after. Seems maybe some of you in the know could share a bit more when it becomes available???? I'm guessing you knew about the meeting earlier than the night it took place? I'm guessing you had the minutes before I asked for them?

You see why your blanket statement that there was nothing new irritated me.....maybe not to you but we are all not as in the know as you so for some of us there was indeed new info. Blanket statements are a dangerous and typically inaccurate form of communication. Very rarely does everything apply to everyone.

[LongDraw]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Hmmm...well I must have missed a few posts...

So what are the other forms of communication you reference that don't take place on this board.....I still feel out of the loop the way you are saying everything is old hat. I never found out about the meeting until the night it happened....funny that was never posted here. I never knew about the minutes either until that person came up to me at the show on the weekend yet many seem to have received them last week and again no mention here. You see why it seems a bit of an information vaccuum exists here. I'd like to find out about things before they happen like some of you seem to be and not after. Seems maybe some of you in the know could share a bit more when it becomes available????

Sheep,

The other forms of communication I was making reference to is email and telephone. There are people very active in regards to opposing OS that have never even logged on to this website. ( crazy eh?)

If you knew what was in the minutes at the show then you knew about them before I recieved them. I got them yesterday.

I found out the time and location of the Calgary meeting at 10:00 PM the evening before a 9:00 AM meeting.

From all I can see most of the members that now have info on this board have been accomodating with posting and answering questions truthfully and without hesitation. Getting info in the beginning (just after the fact sheet was made public) however was like pulling hens teeth, some that knew more than others chose not to say anything....

So ya I'd agree that there is a vacuum, but it is from the top on this one.

If you knew what was in the minutes at the show then you knew about them before I recieved them. I got them yesterday.

As I've said countless times today...I had no idea what was in the minutes until Bubba shared them today...just that they existed.

Well, if you do hear about a meeting that is open to the public or receive new info about Open Spaces like was in the minutes please feel free to e-mail me with that info. I'm sure if you'd have posted the meeting info that many others from the board would have attended regardless of the fact that you only found out 23 hours before it took place. Regardless of where the information vaccuum originates...no reason to increase its suction down here at the common man's level.

[LongDraw]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Well, if you do hear about a meeting that is open to the public or receive new info about Open Spaces like was in the minutes please feel free to e-mail me with that info. I'm sure if you'd have posted the meeting info that many others from the board would have attended regardless of the fact that you only found out 23 hours before it took place. Regardless of where the information vaccuum originates...no reason to increase its suction down here at the common man's level.

Likewise.

Will do!

[buddyhunter]

WOW... that was alot of reading and some really great info on this thing.
It looks pretty scary to me.

[Kanonfodder]

Now I understand it's hard to get a "tone" from some minutes but it strikes me that the working group seems to be a tad dismissive of any opposition to the work they have done so far. The idea that we should simply allow this to go foreward unapposed and unchecked simply because " so much work has been done " is ludicrous. Too freakn bad, if I want to bake a cake I gotta break some eggs. If getting it right means starting over or even killing the concept, then that's what needs to happen end of story.
The other thing that bothers me is once again one of the "unidentified" ranchers stated that if OSA doesn't get pushed thru he will simply get the Indians to "get rid of the problem " is complete and utter BS. In a way I agree with the one statement that there is indirect compensation vis a vie grazing leases that do offset the cost ( I want to see the real cost in dollars from a ranch from the impact of wildlife ) perhaps then we should throw out a proposal that we raise the cost of grazing leases in order to help ofset the costs of OS, betcha we would hear the cries of protest from down south all the way up in Edmonton.
This program is ill concieved and IMO a waste of time and effort as it stands now. It also concerns me that I see no wildlife biologist on the WG ( stupid abreviations )
PS
also was disturbed with the attitude that when asked about the fact they , the WG, were in essence creating a 2 tier hunting culture. and the response was that with outfitters we already have a 2 tier system. I disagree its very similar to paying for an MIR their is a place for outfitters and there are certain safeguards in place to ensure rules are followed, I see no such safeguards in this OS framework......
thats what I think of it so flame away

[goldscud]

Yes Kanonfodder, I had a hard time with the notion of bringing in some natives to eradicate all the wildlife. That is the thought of someone who is supposed to be a STEWART of the land??? That kind of thinking is really sad.

Yeah, you can sure tell he is in it to save habitat and develop more hunting opportunities. He is not driven by monetary gain at all.
He is the same guy who had/has a "parking" fee to hunt on his land.

[packhuntr]

, ya, good point Goldscud.... Tough to imagine hey, and they want to be taken seriously. These people need a slogan for this campain. Something like, "Look em in the eye and lie"....They are just making this thing up as they go. You cant do that, who does that. Its crazy.

keep a strain on er.

[buddyhunter]

Doesn't he say that he doesn't charge for access but his neighbours do? Maybe he should elaborate on that... It's illegal right?

Originally Posted by buddyhunter

Doesn't he say that he doesn't charge for access but his neighbours do? Maybe he should elaborate on that... It's illegal right?

In his mind (as small as it is) he doesn't charge for access. He only has a "parking" fee.

[buddyhunter]

Regardless it's illegal and legalizing paid hunting is not the answer.

I went to the all candidates forum for the Little Bow constituency tonight in Picture Butte. Interesting.
I endured the opening statements from the five candidates present and was stunned to hear the ND guy mention Open Spaces in his opening salvo.
I was positioned front and center so I could not be ignored and was lucky to get my question in first.
My question was directed at the incumbent, Barry McFarland (PC). I indicated that he had supported the OS pilot in Cabinet Policy Committee and asked a two part question. 1. If he had consulted any of his constituents on the decision? and 2. What his thinking process was in arriving at the decision to support it? Since all candidates were to have a shot at responding I also modified the question for the others to simply ask their position on OS.
McFarland started off by saying that the pilot is for privately owned, deeded land only. He said the pilot was proposed by the SRD, the university (he didn't specify which one) and hunter groups. He said that it was only a pilot and there would be no direct payment to landowners. The monies raised would go to reimburing landowners who have lots of damage to their land by say large numbers of elk.
The Wildrose Alliance candidate (Kevin Kinahan) was next and said the pilot was conceived in a underhanded way and the program would limit hunting opportunities for residents. He then started quoting from the business analysis and shocked some in the audience by telling them that a bull elk would cost 8K and a bull moose would cost 10K. He also exposed the increased wait times for draws. He indicated that these prices would turn the sport in to a rich man's game.
The ND candidate (Duane Petluk) jumped in and stated that McFarland was correct in that the program is on private land only. He went on to say the process was secretive and closed door and made the undeniable point that a price was being put on the heads of a publically held resource - wildlife. He then compared this to the PC's privatizing of other things like health care. This guy struck a cord with some of the audience and a smattering of applause was heard.
An audience member interrupted the flow and asked if he could ask questions within the line of an existing flow of responses. The moderator allowed it. This guy admitted he was unaware of the whole issue but was stuck on the prices mentioned and wanted to know where the money was coming from and who was getting it. His question was aimed at McFarland.
McFarland responded by saying that the hunters don't pay any more and the monies generated from the sales of tags would be pooled and divided to help with habitat and landowners for damage. He said that no one is paying landowners anything. He ended by saying it is only a five year pilot and if it didn't work it would be curtailed.
I looked at a guy down the row from me who I recognized from the Lethbridge gun show. He shook his head and shrugged, as did I. I mouthed the words to him, "He dosen't know". The man nodded.
Kinahan responded by saying that there may be a middle man and the payments may be indirect but there are hunters paying large amounts and there will be landowners recieving the money so it is payment none the less wether it is direct or indirect. He said it "just didn't make sense" He then attacked the process and being secretive and linked this to his party's platform of more open and accountable government.
The Liberal and Green candidate did not make any moves to enter the discussion and another audience member posed a question and the topic moved to health care.
I slipped out midway through the healthcare round to try to address the raging headache I had by this time.
I felt like a bit of a dupe as some in the audience must have thought I was a plant for the ND's.
I am sure some on this board will accuse me of bulling my way into a meeting and then taking my ball and going home.

My take.
I got the distinct impression that McFarland was being honest and not playing clever political games. I left thinking he really didn't know the program very well and had helped approve something that he might not have fully understood. The side conversation I had with the guy in the audience made me believe he thought the same thing.
Kinahan was very familiar with the program and had all the right angles to discredit it. Having the business analysis in his hand and quoting numbers off of it was good politics for a first-time candidate.
I had written off the ND Petluk as a flake for his appearance. I was more than a little surprised to see him as a good public speaker and one that had some real cahones in attacking the PC's and the well-respected incumbent in the room. The fact that he had good knowledge of the program and its offensive principles was a surprise as well considering only two weeks ago that party had a supportive position on OS on its website.

It is a single issue election to me, and that issue isn't the Royalty Review.

I encourage all here to go to your candidates forums and get your local politicos to give a public position on OS.

[bruceba]

Open Spaces / Pandora's Box. I've talked to several Colonies and they would like to know how to apply for any of these programs. So not knowing I figured I'd ask. How do they apply or who do they contact for information? Do they have to join together or can they apply on their own. I'll let you know what I find out for them.

[Justanotherbuck2]

Well this morning as I was reading my local newspaper I found inclosed a insert from the liberal party. Action plan for Alberta on Page three Under the heading Public Lands Management Line three HALT "PAID HUNTING "IN ALBERTA. That statement alone gets my vote. Maybe a few more votes for other party's will show the conservatives that Alberta's outdoors community is not for this scheme.

[30Gibbs]

Just thought I would share what I just got from Herb Coburn,
Provincial Liberal Candidate Foothills Rocky View.

Here it is:

Good morning everyone. I thought you might be interested in this press release from the Alberta Liberals. If you have connections with the Alberta Fish and Game Association please let them know of your dissatisfaction as well.
All the best. Herb Coburn.

For immediate release

February 22, 2008



You can’t trust Ted Morton to protect Alberta’s wildlife

PC MLA campaigns at the Alberta Fish and Game Association conference his government funds; Alberta Liberals shut out



Edmonton – This afternoon, Foothills-Rockyview MLA Ted Morton addressed the Alberta Fish and Game Association conference in Edmonton, in the middle of an election campaign.



The Alberta Liberals also wanted to address the conference, but were denied by AFGA president Maurice Nadeau. Nadeau also denied the Alberta Liberals the opportunity to distribute a letter of greeting to the conference. He also refused to read a statement of greeting into the conference record from the party.



The Alberta Liberals wanted to tell AFGA members about the government’s Open Spaces Alberta pilot project, and our vision to protect Alberta’s natural wonders.



We would have told attendees that Open Spaces amounts to a “pay-to-hunt” system that will enable only the wealthy to hunt legally.



We would have told them that Open Spaces is essentially privatizing wildlife, since landowners would have the right to resell hunting tags.



We would have told them that Open Spaces is nothing more than another PC government boondoggle designed to benefit large landowners, but penalize the average Alberta hunter.



We would have told them how Morton, who was Minister of Sustainable Resource Development and, thus, responsible for Open Spaces, still hasn’t released a land-use framework with input from ALL stakeholders.



We would have told them how Open Spaces would bring vast swaths of Alberta’s pristine wildlife habitats under the control of private landowners, with no responsibility to protect it or allow free access to the public.



And we would have told them how we have heard from hunters across the province who are outraged by Open Spaces.



You’d have to ask Nadeau why he didn’t allow the Alberta Liberals an opportunity to address AFGA in the middle of an election campaign. But it might have something to do with the $621,000 in grants AFGA received from Sustainable Resource Development Alberta over the last five years, part of nearly $1.1 million in total grants from the Alberta government (source: Alberta Treasury “Blue Books”).



It’s time for a change to get the job done right.

[Dick284]

I'm not picking a side to this political stuff, But what Herb possible thought to think about when releasing his announcement was, that traditionally the AFGA confrence has had the Minister for SRD come and say his piece. He's the fellow at the helm and he is the one to answer the Delegates questions. Being that the AFGA connvention falls right smack dab in the middle of an election campaign is sort of awkawrd. And as awkward as it is, I'm sure Nadeau's thought process was such that he would stick to tradition and not even enter into the political relm.
This confrence is for the AFGA, not for the political gain of a political party.

[LongDraw]

I can understand why the AFGA didn't want the Liberal candidate to speak at the meeting- The AGM is for business of the AFGA., not a political platform or town hall meeting for politicians to try to get votes, sorry wrong venue... The AFGA deals with the current Government and Minister in power and that is Morton and the PC's. If the Liberal candidate wants to get his message out to Alberta sportsmen he could have put an ad in the AO magazine, or joined this forum for that matter. Stand in front of the local hunting and fishing stores and hand out leaflets.

Anyways, I would think that the people attending the AFGA conference know of Open Spaces, it is the Sportsmen not as involved that need to get this information. No point in preaching to the converted.......

[bruceba]

Being that the AFGA connvention falls right smack dab in the middle of an election campaign is sort of awkawrd. And as awkward as it is, I'm sure Nadeau's thought process was such that he would stick to tradition and not even enter into the political relm.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Mr. Morton speak at the AGM in Medicine Hat while trying to garner votes during his run for Klien's seat?

[LongDraw]

Originally Posted by bruceba

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Mr. Morton speak at the AGM in Medicine Hat while trying to garner votes during his run for Klien's seat?

Interesting...

I certainly hope that there has been consistency in the past with AFGA's decision in not letting a political candidate to speak this year...

Ammended resolution:

BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Alberta Fish & Game Association is in support of the proposed Sustainable Resource Developement's " OPEN SPACES ALBERTA"
pilot program.

OPPOSED UNANOMOUSLY

Common Sense Prevails!!!!!!

[Duk Dog]

Good news. I'd suspect that just because the AFGA membership is opposed that likely won't stop OS from still moving forward. Should there still be negotiation meetings regarding OS I hope that AFGA remains at the table and is present for all future talks & meetings.

[lazy ike]

Originally Posted by Duk Dog

Good news. I'd suspect that just because the AFGA membership is opposed that likely won't stop OS from still moving forward. Should there still be negotiation meetings regarding OS I hope that AFGA remains at the table and is present for all future talks & meetings.

I too hope AFGA stays at the table.

[bowchaser]

Bubba, were you there? Anyone who was there, what was the sentiment to Morton's address? Was there a vote count?

[Young Eldon]

If there was any support for the proposal after Morton's addrress - it vaporized by the time they voted since there was not a single vote of support from any delegate. My guess is there were 200+ votes cast.