Newest information on open spaces.

Originally Posted by chevy427

funny how all the seagulls are quit about misinformation now

I guess that's what happens when people quit spreading it.....you might want to thanks those seagulls or guys would still be screaming about something they had no facts about. Good to see hunters making informed decisions about Open Spaces now. I think the powers that be would pay a bit more attention to an informed decision than an uninformed one......at least that's my thought.

[209x50]

Congrats to the fellows from the south and from here on AO now sitting at the table negotiating the "fleshing out" of the Open Spaces project that everyone should be kept well informed of the progress made. Kudos to you gentlemen and I for one look forward to the fruits of your labors.

[Bull Shooter]

Originally Posted by 209x50

Congrats to the fellows from the south and from here on AO now sitting at the table negotiating the "fleshing out" of the Open Spaces project that everyone should be kept well informed of the progress made. Kudos to you gentlemen and I for one look forward to the fruits of your labors.

I don’t have a lot of knowledge on the latest, but this is interesting and at the very least hopeful. Has additional representation been added to the Open Spaces consulting group for negotiating and “fleshing out” the proposal? I understood an invitation was extended at the Lethbridge gathering to attend an additional meeting but I was not of the impression that it included any input to negotiate (advance, modify or terminate) Open Spaces. By my observations, virtually all stakeholders or attendees at the Lethbridge gathering were against Open Spaces, and again, by my observations SRD and Dr. Gates had every desire of putting Open Spaces through as quickly as possible.

If this has changed, then GREAT... but if it has not, I think we need to be very careful thinking there is some sort of opportunity to “negotiate”. What have you heard? Regards, Mike

[Rust]

Ok how many of you guys have got this exact response???? This is the 2 time I have got this response word for word and I know that I have read it else where too. But it is the only response I can get from the Gov. Has anybody else been able to get anything other then this?


Thanks for your January 16th, 2008 Email regarding the Open Spaces Alberta Pilot Project. Mr. Lund has now consulted with his colleague, Honourable Ted Morton, Minister of Sustainable Resource Development, and Minister Morton is pleased to provide the following information:


"Good public hunting depends on an abundance of wildlife. Abundant wildlife depends on the availability of quality habitat. In Southern and Central Alberta, three-quarters of the habitat is on privately owned land. Private landowners receive little or no compensation to maintain wildlife habitat on their land or to increase public access to their property. These landowners provide this important public benefit at considerable costs and risk to themselves. At the same time, access to private land is becoming more difficult; the number of hunters is declining; and access to prime fishing areas is decreasing.

Minister Morton advises that Open Spaces Alberta is a pilot program developed by the University of Calgary 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, including the Alberta Beef Producers, Western Stock Growers Association, Alberta Fish and Game Association, Hunting for Tomorrow Foundation, Alberta Conservation Association, Alberta Agriculture & Food, Alberta Employment, Immigration & Industry, Alberta Sustainable Resource Development and the University of Calgary, have been engaged in the process.


For further information on Open Spaces Alberta, please visit http://poli.ucalgary.ca/wildlifestewardship/."


I have have sent e-mail to Morton Via the foothills assembly address and asked for something other then a canned response. It sure gets me when this all they can come up with!!!!!!

[Bull Shooter]

Please! Does anyone know if a group from the South or here on AO, are now (or will be) sitting at the table negotiating the “fleshing out” of the Open Spaces project? Given the recent publicity of the project, I can’t see why it would be a secret.

I certainly hope it is true, providing the input would be considered in a meaningful way and might include scrapping the proposal in its entirety. If this is indeed true (and I am almost giddy with anticipation) can you provide names and/or the organizations represented? I must admit, that I have not heard a thing, but unfortunately, that does not surprise me too much.

While this might be a significant event (if true), I think we should continue contacting as many MLA’s and Ministers as possible and continue to voice our opposition and concerns with the Open Spaces proposal. It was my observation (and I could be wrong) that this thing has gone too far and will only be defeated by the politicians now.

Rusty - I still have not got a response... not even the form letter! Regards, Mike

[Pathfinder76]

Congrats to the fellows from the south and from here on AO now sitting at the table negotiating the "fleshing out" of the Open Spaces project that everyone should be kept well informed of the progress made. Kudos to you gentlemen and I for one look forward to the fruits of your labors.

These "fellows" from the south are the exact same guys that you, Richard, have been beaking off at from the beginning. I thing an apology instead of a "kudos" might be in order.

[Pathfinder76]

I guess that's what happens when people quit spreading it.....you might want to thanks those seagulls or guys would still be screaming about something they had no facts about. Good to see hunters making informed decisions about Open Spaces now. I think the powers that be would pay a bit more attention to an informed decision than an uninformed one......at least that's my thought.

There isn't much in the way of recent facts that are any different from the original post on the matter. These southern "radical hillbillies" have and had a handle on the crux of this matter from the very beginning. Despite the squawking and wing flapping of a few "educated" birds people are now realizing that these guys knew what they were talking about all along. Will a seagull eat crow?

Originally Posted by chuck

There isn't much in the way of recent facts that are any different from the original post on the matter. These southern "radical hillbillies" have and had a handle on the crux of this matter from the very beginning. Despite the squawking and wing flapping of a few "educated" birds people are now realizing that these guys knew what they were talking about all along. Will a seagull eat crow?

All I ever did was clear up some misinformation and add some facts to the conversation.....it was others that tried to drag me in the middle of it and put me on one side or the other.....it ****ed them off that I wouldn't bite so no crow to eat...sorry chuck. I'm not sure why facts **** some people off so much.....I guess when you don't know the facts but you aren't shy about shooting your mouth off and someone presents them, it can make you look foolish...kinda like eating crow I guess. Personally I've never had the appetite for it so I keep my mouth shut until I know the facts but others seem to enjoy the taste. As I said, I'm glad that it seems most are working off the facts now though....I always respect an informed opinion. But to say that all had the facts in the beginning is laughable at best.....the facts weren't even available.

[270WIN]

Originally Posted by Bull Shooter

Please! Does anyone know if a group from the South or here on AO, are now (or will be) sitting at the table negotiating the “fleshing out” of the Open Spaces project? Given the recent publicity of the project, I can’t see why it would be a secret.

I certainly hope it is true, providing the input would be considered in a meaningful way and might include scrapping the proposal in its entirety. If this is indeed true (and I am almost giddy with anticipation) can you provide names and/or the organizations represented? I must admit, that I have not heard a thing, but unfortunately, that does not surprise me too much.

While this might be a significant event (if true), I think we should continue contacting as many MLA’s and Ministers as possible and continue to voice our opposition and concerns with the Open Spaces proposal. It was my observation (and I could be wrong) that this thing has gone too far and will only be defeated by the politicians now.

Rusty - I still have not got a response... not even the form letter! Regards, Mike

My wife and I sent our separate letters to Ted Morton in the mail this morning with copies to the premier and our own MLA. Spent the weekend working on them and phoning friends and relatives asking them to do the same. Hope we get more than the standard "canned" reply but I'm not overly optimistic about that. All we can do is continue to apply the pressure on our elected representatives. An election is coming, probably quite soon, and we need to remind them of that in our letters.

On another note, I plan to give the Alberta Fish and Game Association ,of which I have been a member for well over 30 years, a piece of my mind for the way they hung the hunters and anglers of this province out to dry on this matter and for the rudeness of the association's rep to the Open Spaces meetings who still has not returned the three separate phone calls I made to him the week before last. That, however, will have to wait for another day.

[209x50]

Originally Posted by chuck

These "fellows" from the south are the exact same guys that you, Richard, have been beaking off at from the beginning. I thing an apology instead of a "kudos" might be in order.

There isn't much in the way of recent facts that are any different from the original post on the matter. These southern "radical hillbillies" have and had a handle on the crux of this matter from the very beginning. Despite the squawking and wing flapping of a few "educated" birds people are now realizing that these guys knew what they were talking about all along. Will a seagull eat crow?

I've asked questions and added some facts but I've never said I was for or against this program, I know how much that chokes some people but I can't help that. I think the quickest way to get to the front of the crow line is to shoot your mouth off BEFORE you know what the heck is going on. Right chuck?
Since this is still being negotiated and with some new people at the table we don't know the out come yet,- right chuck?

[Bull Shooter]

Originally Posted by 209x50

Congrats to the fellows from the south and from here on AO now sitting at the table negotiating the "fleshing out" of the Open Spaces project that everyone should be kept well informed of the progress made. Kudos to you gentlemen and I for one look forward to the fruits of your labors.

I was just advised that the fellows from the south and from here on AO that are now sitting at the table negotiating the "fleshing out" of the Open Spaces project are likely the landowners involved in 108 and 300. This now makes perfect sense (to me anyway). I had hoped it was a group opposing Open Spaces so I feel a bit deflated and apologize if I got anyone's hopes up. Like I said earlier, we need to attack this on the political front now. Good luck! Regards, Mike

Originally Posted by 209x50

Since this is still being negotiated and with some new people at the table we don't know the out come yet,- right chuck?

Originally Posted by JohninAB
Coles Version: To change legislation it does not have to go through the legislature. It goes through a policy group made up of MLA's. It is presented to them, if they approve it, it is basically a done deal.

If JohninAB is correct on this it is a done deal. Just found out the Cabinet Policy Committe approved this on December 6. The hope at that time was that Cabinet would approve it before Christmas. Not sure if that happened or not.

Bubba

Here is a list of the MLA's that were on the committee. I plan on emailing them all and CCing the Liberal Shadow Minister as well.

The members of Cabinet Policy Committee for Resources and the Environment are as follows:

Ivan Strang, Chair, MLA West Yellowhead
Rob Renner, Vice-Chair Minister of Environment
Mel Knight, Minister of Energy
George Groeneveld, Minister of Agriculture and Food
Ted Morton, Minister of Sustainable Resource Development
Gordon Graydon, MLA Grande Prairie-Wapiti
Doug Griffiths, MLA Battle River-Wainwright
Carol Haley, MLA Airdrie-Chestemere
Richard Magnus, MLA Calgary-North Hill
Barry McFarland, MLA Little Bow
Len Mitzel, MLA Cypress-Medicine Hat
Frank Oberle, MLA Peace River
George VanderBurg, MLA Whitecourt-St. Anne

Bubba

[Pathfinder76]

I've asked questions and added some facts but I've never said I was for or against this program, I know how much that chokes some people but I can't help that. I think the quickest way to get to the front of the crow line is to shoot your mouth off BEFORE you know what the heck is going on. Right chuck?
Since this is still being negotiated and with some new people at the table we don't know the out come yet,- right chuck?

You're fooling no one Richard.

[209x50]

Originally Posted by chuck

You're fooling no one Richard.

About what chuck?

[Pathfinder76]

[209x50]

What on earth is up with you tonight chuck? You are making about as much sense as a fart in a whirlwind. Too much anti freeze on a cold night maybe?

[LongDraw]

From all of the info that I have seen to date the original 3 page "info" sheet, as well as the 10 page "terms of reference" that was originally the first info made public is still current. there has been more information added, but nothing to contradict the original release.

Originally Posted by LongDraw

From all of the info that I have seen to date the original 3 page "info" sheet, as well as the 10 page "terms of reference" that was originally the first info made public is still current. there has been more information added, but nothing to contradict the original release.

Ya, I agree but sure lots to contradict all the speculation in the beginning...lol Good to see everyone operating with the facts now though.

All we can ask for is a hope that there is still time to stop this whole ordeal! But with the addition of more landowners to the table, or talks of them being invited, it's going to be tougher to do.

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Ya, I agree but sure lots to contradict all the speculation in the beginning...lol Good to see everyone operating with the facts now though.

Yes it is good to see everyone operating with the facts. If certain people in the know would have given the information they had a lot of speculation could have been avoided.

Bubba

Originally Posted by bubbasno1

Yes it is good to see everyone operating with the facts. If certain people in the know would have given the information they had a lot of speculation could have been avoided.

Bubba

I hope that wasn't directed at me but you are right there did seem to be an information vaccuum from SRD. I find it funny that so many people think I was in the know because I remained quiet in the beginning. Truth be known, I was just busy gathering facts, as I did with the IMHA, and had access to only the same info everyone else on the board did. It didn't stop a lot of slanderous comments being hurled at me though. Oh well, water under the bridge I guess but it sure changed my opinion of a few people. Some people really need to use their brain before they speak and some people are just malicious for reasons I've yet to comprehend. Alot of good people were very badly hurt in this fiasco.....people that likely could have been allies!

Originally Posted by sheephunter

I hope that wasn't directed at me but you are right there did seem to be an information vaccuum from SRD. I find it funny that so many people think I was in the know because I remained quiet in the beginning. Truth be known, I was just busy gathering facts, as I did with the IMHA, and had access to only the same info everyone else on the board did. It didn't stop a lot of slanderous comments being hurled at me though. Oh well, water under the bridge I guess but it sure changed my opinion of a few people. Some people really need to use their brain before they speak and some people are just malicious for reasons I've yet to comprehend. Alot of good people were very badly hurt in this fiasco.....people that likely could have been allies!

I was actually referring to the working group who in theory represented us as Albertans in this matter.

Bubba

Originally Posted by bubbasno1

I was actually referring to the working group who in theory represented us as Albertans in this matter.

Bubba

Good to hear!

This is one of the major complaints of landowners

"Landowners bear the cost of production of wildlife (a public resource)"

This is part of the solution

"Allocation changes

1. Current: Antlerless mule deer currently have a draw allocation in WMU 300

Proposed: Antlerless mule deer will be closed season in WMU 300

2. Current: Antlerless Elk currently have a draw allocation in WMU 108.

Proposed: Antlerless Elk will be closed season in WMU 108.

Rationale: Outcome will be an increased trophy hunt"


Now I know I am not that bright but is there not more Doe's than Buck's and Cow's than Bulls. Would this not increase the cost of production.

Why is it so important to increase the trophy hunt?

Again it all comes down to the money.

I have other issues with the cost of production of wildlife argument most specifically in 300 but I have already stated this in a previous post.

By the way PM me for the most recent documents I received today.

Bubba

Just looking at the documents again. This I think is in both of the last 2 documents.

These are the actual decrease in resident tags for each zone.

WMU 300

Antlerled Elk 12
Antlerless Elk 130
Antlered Moose 1
Antlered Mule deer 4 (Quota goes up 2 HFH gets 6)
Antlerless Mule deer 8

Decrease in hunting opportunities 155

WMU 108

Antlered Elk Gain 8
Antlerless Elk 65
Antlered Mule Deer 19
Antlerless Mule Deer 162
Antelope 3

Decrease in hunting opportunities 241

Total opportunities lost 396.

How does this increase hunting opportunities? Propogate this over the entire province it is brutal.

The one that bothers me the most is Antlerless Mule deer. This is probably the number one animal for a young hunter. I know my first hunting experience was a mule doe. My son's also was the same. I would venture to guess that quite a few others have had this same experience. They are taking this away and expecting the hunter numbers to increase. This does not make sense to me.


Bubba

[Pathfinder76]

My dad, quite possible will never again draw a Moose tag in 300. I won't draw again for another eight years, my son won't get drawn until he is over 30 if ever. I was drawn for and killed a Bull Elk in 300 on January 1st 2004. My son was born a month and a half later. Now I won't draw again until he is 10yrs old! How in the world can someone see this as increased opportunity for the resident hunter?

[Vindalbakken]

I don't get this backslapping over the debating of "facts" versus speculation. There is nothing in the facts that disputes the original speculation that the gov't is ready, willing and able to open the door for paid hunting in Alberta. There is nothing in the facts that disputes the FACTS that paid hunting in every other jurisdiction in the entire world has been a detriment to the enjoyment of the sport by everyday folks.

Niggling over the details is where the proponents of this abortion would like to see us. Because then they have won.

Unfortunately, all the finger pointing, slandering and wild accusations accomplishes the same thing as well.....

[Vindalbakken]

No Sheep, it is not quite the same thing. The discussing of the merit of various details of the agreement indicates a willingness to accept the pilot in principle.

The other stuff is just other stuff - borne of frustration and anger with the proposal and the process by those who are not willing to accept the underlying principal upon which the pilot is predicated.

There is a pretty thin line between "impartiality" and "niggling over details". The much anticipated "facts" have shown the original information to be all that it was cracked up to be.