Newest information on open spaces.

[Pathfinder76]

The numbers put out in this document are what puzzle me the most. They're based on a multitude of variables that are completely out of the organizing bodies control. As an example, it has been widely assumed that Deseret Ranches of Alberta will participate in this program. I've been told personally by management at Deseret Farm Management that they will not participate in the program as outlined (they want the tags but under no circumstances want residents who are not paying for their tags on their property, claiming liability issues). Well right there you have 100,000 acres plus that right now could go in two completely different directions. The number of years to draw a tag figure also puzzles me. There is no factoring aditional applicants for these draw's based on peoples reaction to a "possibility" of increased access. Anyway, just a couple of examples.

[Bull Shooter]

Thanks for posting the PDF. I had a chance to go over it quickly and I was a bit surprised as it didn’t seem to have any real earth-shattering changes from the originals posted on the University of Calgary website.

The proposed changes to “comply” with the Wildlife Act are not a real surprise. I worry though, that we are going down the slipperiest of slopes… maybe I’m wrong but here are my thoughts or observations:

The HFH proposal is the virtual epitome of “paid hunting”. I don’t think any regulatory and/or legislative changes will mask this observation. HFH offers direct compensation or indirect compensation to landowners for the privilege of hunting an animal that belongs to the public. It was interesting to see that there was indeed mention of “comparable access” in the draft, so I will be interested to see how they expand or define that concept.

Ironically, I see a lot of difficulty with the proposed Ministerial Order as it pertains to the RAMP proposal. And I think as hunters and anglers, we need to be very careful with what we wish for and how we approach this.

“The wildlife Act does not allow landowners to be paid for providing hunting access”.

The Recreational Access Management Plan appears to be at odds. In the “original” Open Spaces Pilot Program Proposal it states: “The intent of RAMP is to provide compensation to landowners for providing recreational access to the public, and recreational users do not pay for access”. Please note that it specifically identifies “recreational users” not hunters and/or anglers (specifically).

Later in the document, which appears to be a Power Point frame, it explains: “Landowners voluntarily enroll private lands and provide enhanced access opportunities for hunting and fishing – Lands identified for public to freely access for hunting and fishing…” Here it does not mention “recreational users” (specifically).

My question, and I think it is important to Alberta hunters and anglers, is – Which is it?

If landowners participating in the RAMP proposal are being compensated for solely allowing hunting and angling opportunities, then I think the “Recreational Access Management Program does NOT pass the “litmus test”. It is paid hunting and/or paid angling.

If RAMP is equally prejudicial or beneficial to all recreational users (hikers, berry pickers, photographers, mountain bikers, etc.) then I think it largely meets the intentions of the proposal with less bias amongst “consumptive” and “non-consumptive” users.

As a hunter or angler, this is not all good news… in fact this could be very bad news.

According to the documentation, landowners would be compensated (up to?) $20/recreational day to a maximum of 1,000 days ($20,000). There is also another section that suggests a landowner may be compensated up to $20/recreational day to a yearly maximum of $2,000 per section, per year. I suppose this caps compensation payments to landowners having more than 10 sections of land that choose not to participate in the HFH proposal.

The subject that needs more explanation, especially for hunters and anglers, is the notion or definition of “recreational users”. If this group is to include all consumptive and non-consumptive users then I would guess that hunters (particularly) may be in for an unpleasant surprise. Given the timing of our endeavors, it is entirely possible and likely that a landowner could be (intentionally or otherwise) “maxed out” on compensation by the time hunting season arrives. There might be no monetary gain to compel him or her to allow access.

On the flip side, if “recreational users” are limited to only hunters and anglers, then I suspect the “paid hunting or angling” label is accurate and other would-be recreational users, excluded from the Recreational Access Management Program are prejudiced… a condition that becomes additionally volatile if compensation monies are paid out of general revenue.

Sorry for the long and drawn out post, but I found the clarity of the document(s) a bit ambiguous and in places - contradictory… still a lot of questions. If anyone can shed any light on the subject I would be most appreciative. Regards, Mike

[gunslinger]

ok so basically alberta is heading to where we can buy a outfitted hunt on these ranches,,,is the 30000 acre thing still in effect or are these little landowner people get tags too.

[Rocks]

I just read through the Open Spaces document that bubba linked. I haven't been following all this, but when I read it my initial reaction was that all that is going to happen is that the HFH landowner group/s are going to sell their tags to an outfitter and let him market them, which will result in former resident tags going mostly to non-res aliens.

Maybe I'm wrong but that's what I see from the proposal.

[Bull Shooter]

Originally Posted by gunslinger

ok so basically alberta is heading to where we can buy a outfitted hunt on these ranches,,,is the 30000 acre thing still in effect or are these little landowner people get tags too.

Gunslinger, as I read it and if the information is correct (HFH)

- HFH Unit (landowners) form a group and commit their land in the program - Must include a minimum of 20% of significant wildlife habitat (my emphasis) on private land in Wildlife Management Unit.

I would venture to guess that the land base would vary zone to zone and will also be subject to the definition or application of the term "significant wildlife habitat"? Best I can do for now. Regards, Mike

[Vindalbakken]

Originally Posted by chuck

Jamie, no disrespect intended, but your post is a perfect example of why it is important for everyone to read the actual document. It will take 15 minutes of your time.

I have yet to see a Moose on the McIntyre or the Deseret.

The number is in there chuck, in the Business Analysis for WMU 300 where they expect to be giving the HFH one moose tag with a speculative value to the landowner of $10,000.

[Jamie]

Originally Posted by chuck

The numbers put out in this document are what puzzle me the most. They're based on a multitude of variables that are completely out of the organizing bodies control. As an example, it has been widely assumed that Desert Ranches of Alberta will participate in this program. I've been told personally by management at Desert Farm Management that they will not participate in the program as outlined (they want the tags but under no circumstances want residents who are not paying for their tags on their property, claiming liability issues). Well right there you have 100,000 acres plus that right now could go in two completely different directions. The number of years to draw a tag figure also puzzles me. There is no factoring additional applicants for these draws based on peoples reaction to a "possibility" of increased access. Anyway, just a couple of examples.

Chuck.. do you really think this thing would be going forward if they didn't have the co-operation of the 2 ranches it was designed for? The minimums to get involved with the HFH are 20% of the significant wildlife habitat in a specific WMU. I THINK only these 2 ranches qualify.

Chuck.. I have taken the time to read it. The moose thing is there. Not sure if there is actually Moose.. But you can have a tag if you have the cash!

Here is a interesting note
in 2007 there was 2 Bull elk tags for for the outfitters in WMU 300. Now there is 3.. Why on gods green earth did the outfitters get another tag.. How does this possible effect them. (Other than the fact they can now bid on HFH tags) Why did They need that bump??

Jamie

[duffy4]

Originally Posted by bubbasno1

I would like peoples thoughts on the following. I will put this down word for word. Let me know how you interpret this.

"Regulatory and Legislative Changes Required:

Current: The Wildlife Act does not allow landowners to be paid for providing hunting access (paid hunting).

Proposed: A Ministerial Order will outline that landowner payment from an organization based on contractual commitments to provide wildlife habitat and access is not in violation with the Wildlife Act."

Bubba

To the original question Bubba.

They came up with a plan, then saw that a part could be interpreted as being in contravention of the law. So they had to address that problem with a Ministerial order. (the mimister has the power to make certian "changes", exemtions and definitions to or of a law)

You are familiar with the special "ministers permits" for sheep and elk. The season for sheep and elk is closed. But the ministerial order allows them to be hunted in that "out of season" time period, on these special permits.

I will not go off on a tangent and comment here on the whole pilot project and my opinion as to if it bad or good.

Robin in Rocky

[Vindalbakken]

More interesting than that Jamie is the 10% calculations. 3 tags is way under the 10%, but antelope in 108 is at 20%. It also looks like they will be trying to force the outfitters in 108 to buy from the HFH since they took 11 of their Whitetail tags away. Weird numbers.

[Vindalbakken]

Bubba there is no other way to interpret it. They want the minister to change the law that governs how wildlife is viewed and hunted in Alberta so that they can legally implement a plan to pay landowners for access for hunting purposes. As long as that law remains in effect their plan is illegal.

Did you also notice that the payment for access can come "from an organization"? That is not the same as saying payment can come "from a government body".

.

.

I have decided to delete my last few post as I do not want to bias the discussion that is going on. I would like people to read the information and give their assesment based on it rather than hearing what I have to say. The more honest feedback on the document the better. No matter what it is. I would like to hear it all. I have already been drug into one discussion that I should have avoided. Please keep posting or PMing.

Bubba still searching for answers.

[gunslinger]

well i guess if thats teh way its gonna be and its out in the open now and everyone knows whats happeing, i guess a guy better get ahold of the mcyntyre ranch and get ahold of one of them muley tags before there all gone.

[209x50]

Nobody is going to pay 10K for little southern AB moose IMHO. That little moose needs to be in MT before BC recognizes it as Shiras. So why would anyone pay 10k for a little Canadian moose? 4k will get you an outfitted hunt in the north. I think the same will go for elk, we don't have much in the way of trophy potential as the BC book tells us so. 4K for a mule tag? Maybe but then the purchaser has to buy an outfitted hunt so he will be paying much more for the hunt in the end. As far as the monster trophies being worth it to hunt the places like the Deseret, I don't know, I can't find any information that the outfitter there kills monsters now. Just my opinion but I don't think all the numbers line up just like a few other things in the document.

[Pathfinder76]

Jamie, that Moose tag is for 300, not 108.

As for the big ranches opting in or out. I'm just passing along firsthand information.

Originally Posted by 209x50

Nobody is going to pay 10K for little southern AB moose IMHO. That little moose needs to be in MT before BC recognizes it as Shiras. So why would anyone pay 10k for a little Canadian moose? 4k will get you an outfitted hunt in the north. I think the same will go for elk, we don't have much in the way of trophy potential as the BC book tells us so. 4K for a mule tag? Maybe but then the purchaser has to buy an outfitted hunt so he will be paying much more for the hunt in the end. As far as the monster trophies being worth it to hunt the places like the Deseret, I don't know, I can't find any information that the outfitter there kills monsters now. Just my opinion but I don't think all the numbers line up just like a few other things in the document.

Imagine what a moose/elk combo hunt will cost. I am pretty sure these ranches can start there own outfitting companies too, pretty cheap start up if you ask me, free tags! Regardless what the tags go for they come out of our draw allocations! And they are selling our wildlife! The whole thing is wrong.

Oh and gunslinger don't bother calling McIntyre, they will never allow hunting.

[duffy4]

340 wtb said:

"Oh and gunslinger don't bother calling McIntyre, they will never allow hunting."


You are missing the whole point here. THEY WILL allow access to resident hunters who have permits (not nessasarily permits bought from them) if they sign the contract and get into the HFH program.

To me that is what turns a questionable plan into a reasonable plan.

For many years hunters have cryed the blues wishing they could somehow get onto some of these ranches to hunt. You don't get something for nothing as a rule. So there is a price to pay (in some loss of resident draw permits and longer wait to be drawn) and then access is avalible.

SRD believes the incentive to protect and develope wildlife habitat will result in better game populations which in turn will lead to MORE resident draw permits down the line.

But I realize that some of you on here have folded your arms accross your chest and are DEAD SET against this plan no matter what.

Robin in Rocky

Originally Posted by duffy4

340 wtb said:

"Oh and gunslinger don't bother calling McIntyre, they will never allow hunting."


You are missing the whole point here. THEY WILL allow access to resident hunters who have permits (not nessasarily permits bought from them) if they sign the contract and get into the HFH program.

Robin in Rocky

Robin,

Sorry guys had to join in.

You seem to be missing a fact here or do not want to here it. McIntyre will not I will repeat WILL NOT be involved in the program. This information came directly from Cormack Gates. Phone him and talk to him.


Bubba

[Jamie]

OK.. I just dont get it.
The Mac is not in and either is the desert..
Whos land is the $$$ going to hunt?

Jamie

[gunslinger]

yea no kidding if there not involved then who is getting the tags, all along these two ranches were the main focus i thought.
if a guy cant hunt on the mcintyre ranch then for me it aint worth it.

Oh and gunslinger don't bother calling McIntyre, they will never allow hunting

oh dont kid yourself as soon as i can find a number to the mcintyre ranch i will be calling, if they tell me i cant hunt on there land then fine, but if they tell me to stop by and pick up a mule deer tag for 4k ,,,,then im gonna be on the first hotshot truck off this rig and on my way down there.

Originally Posted by gunslinger

yea no kidding if there not involved then who is getting the tags, all along these two ranches were the main focus i thought.
if a guy cant hunt on the mcintyre ranch then for me it aint worth it.



oh dont kid yourself as soon as i can find a number to the mcintyre ranch i will be calling, if they tell me i cant hunt on there land then fine, but if they tell me to stop by and pick up a mule deer tag for 4k ,,,,then im gonna be on the first hotshot truck off this rig and on my way down there.

Here's the number 403-329-0043 lets us know how it goes. Be interested to know

Bubba

[gunslinger]

thanx a million bubba

Originally Posted by gunslinger

thanx a million bubba

No problem. I expect to here from you on what their answer is.

Bubba

Deseret still wants the tags. They just do not want the resident hunters that go along with it.

Anybody read the thread by Five-O. Think about it. This is exactly how they are going to get away with it. "I have already let enough people on" "I have cattle on my land" "You can hunt but it is 5 miles back and you have to walk and you can only hunt this quarter".

Bubba

[gunslinger]

ok i jsut spoke to the ranch head honcho and the mcintyre were approached about this thing, and they told them they did not want to be involved in the project,he was a very nice fella and he said he hasnt even heard anymore about it,

So there thats the end of the story, no one is going to be hunting on the mcintyre ranch..... thanx again bubba for the number and i wont bother you guys again on the issue, shes a no go.

Originally Posted by gunslinger

ok i jsut spoke to the ranch head honcho and the mcintyre were approached about this thing, and they told them they did not want to be involved in the project,he was a very nice fella and he said he hasnt even heard anymore about it,

So there thats the end of the story, no one is going to be hunting on the mcintyre ranch..... thanx again bubba for the number and i wont bother you guys again on the issue, shes a no go.

Thanks for posting that info gunslinger.

Bubba

[MathewsArcher]

Originally Posted by bubbasno1

Deseret still wants the tags. They just do not want the resident hunters that go along with it.

Anybody read the thread by Five-O. Think about it. This is exactly how they are going to get away with it. "I have already let enough people on" "I have cattle on my land" "You can hunt but it is 5 miles back and you have to walk and you can only hunt this quarter".

Bubba

Exactly. And remember this is a "pilot" project and if successful would likely expand, so although this is occuring in an area you might not hunt it could easily expand.

It was shut down in the Cypess hills area because it was considered "paid hunting" but has been pushed by the same interests for 108 and 300.

[Dr Death]

As is stated in the previous posted document, those participating in the HFH program must allow 'comparable access' to residents holding the draw. If there are 3 non res elk allotments in wmu 300 then only 3 resident hunters could be allowed on and it still be deemed 'comparable'. Bottom line the resident gets the shaft!

Also, as found in the document, they plan to eliminate the antlerless mulie doe draw in 300, drastically reduce antlerless whitetail doe and mule deer doe tags in 108 and significantly cut antlerless elk in 300. The most shocking proposed change is to eliminate the cow elk draw altogether in 108 and implement a bull season. Exactly the opposite of the current plan. How did our management plan of these species/draws just change so drastically? Did the biologists, armed with the most current scientific data, decide our current plan was obsolete and recommend change? Nope! There is absolutely no science based management here! It is blatantly obvious the intention is to increase the number of trophy tags that will potentially be available for sale. Pretty sad to say the least.

[duffy4]

Originally Posted by bubbasno1

Robin,

Sorry guys had to join in.

You seem to be missing a fact here or do not want to here it. McIntyre will not I will repeat WILL NOT be involved in the program. This information came directly from Cormack Gates. Phone him and talk to him.


Bubba

You will notice 340wtby said never and I said if they sign the contract and .... apparently you are correct they will not be involved in this pilot. But that does not mean they "never" will be.

Robin in Rocky