Newest information on open spaces.

Sorry missed a point in the last post. You posted:

"The one thing the really personally and philospohically bothers me is the entire notion that the landowner "bears a burden" by having wildlife on their land."

I agree it does bother me as well. I went of on a tangent on this one. I bought up the point last night in reference to WMU 300. My statement was all the landowners are getting paid and rewarded for "producing" Elk when in fact the elk spend at minimum 90% of their time in Waterton Park living of off our tax dollars. So the burden of production is definately not the case here.

Bubba

Originally Posted by lazy ike

I'm a little overwhelmed by all this info. Oviously any change to a payed hunting situation in our province is a pathetic solution to limitted access. I wonder how all these "hunters" who are rubbing their hands at the prospect of dropping $4000 to pull a mulie tag are going to feel when someone else offers $8000?

How about this someone pays $8000 and Lazy Ike or Bubba rolls in with his $32 tag and gets the monster.

Pitw

Sorry again one more post then I will shutup. They say that they do not need to change the wildlife act just modify it to say a landowner can be paid for hunting access. I would take this as they do not have to propose this in the legislature at all. I know very little about how government works so if someone could verify this for me. If this happens how long is it going to take for every landowner in the province to figure this out and try to take advantage. This fundamental change will cause huge problems. How can they word it so that only the landowners in 108 and 300 can use this protion and if they do how long will it take for another landowner anywhere else in Alberta to challenge this.

Bubba

[lazy ike]

Originally Posted by bubbasno1

How about this someone pays $8000 and Lazy Ike or Bubba rolls in with his $32 tag and gets the monster.

I suspect if big bucks are involved(both kinds) there will be expectations .

Good posts Waxy and Mav

[lazy ike]

Originally Posted by bubbasno1

Pitw

Sorry again one more post then I will shutup. They say that they do not need to change the wildlife act just modify it to say a landowner can be paid for hunting access. I would take this as they do not have to propose this in the legislature at all. I know very little about how government works so if someone could verify this for me. If this happens how long is it going to take for every landowner in the province to figure this out and try to take advantage. This fundamental change will cause huge problems. How can they word it so that only the landowners in 108 and 300 can use this protion and if they do how long will it take for another landowner anywhere else in Alberta to challenge this.

Bubba

I would expect( I am not a lawyer but have had to deal with them from time to time) that it could be challenged quite easily as the original wording is part of the Wildlife Act. If it does get run through the leg all bets are off.

[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.

Originally Posted by lazy ike

I would expect( I am not a lawyer but have had to deal with them from time to time) that it could be challenged quite easily as the original wording is part of the Wildlife Act. If it does get run through the leg all bets are off.

Sorry I should have qualified me statement. According to SRD their lawyers say they do not have to change the Wildlife act just modify it. Still not sure if this means it has to go to legislature or not. Even if it does it sounds like they are willing to use a Ministerial order to get it through. Again not even sure what this means.

Bubba

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.

Thank you. This has already been proposed to the policy group if the policy group you speak of is the CPC. Had heard they passed it but cannot confirm this as no one on the committee will claim knowledge.


Bubba

“This project has some major momentum and a lot of people are heavily personally invested in it, it's going to take a MONUMENTAL effort to derail it at this point. Those directly involved will never be convinced the program is a bad idea, it'll take orders from above in my opinion.” Waxy

This is one of the biggest hurdles and there will be a lot of red faces if they have to admit they were wrong. Gates has at least two grad students working on this which means funded by this as well as all the “research” he has put into it in the last 12 months. I don’t think the U of C wants to hear that they don’t have a positive conclusion especially after the mess in the Cypress Hill “publish or perish”. ACA has to come up with why they were involved in this especially with sportsmen’s money and allowed themselves to be led down the garden path by there academic partners and SRD would hate to be shown to be on the wrong side of the fence with this because Morten wouldn’t be an up incoming minister and SRD can’t afford to waste any more money.

funny how all the seagulls are quit about misinformation now

[Bull Shooter]

The SRD “guy” that was present at the Lethbridge meeting was Cliff Henderson (if my notes are correct). I thought he was particularly evasive and his responses were ambiguous at best. I really didn’t know many of the guys present as I have rarely participated in formal meetings so I thought I would try and familiarize myself with Mr. Henderson and his role with SRD. I “googled” “Cliff Henderson” + “SRD” and was absolutely astonished when I opened the third or fourth result:

http://issues.albertawilderness.ca/B.../AR0210BH1.pdf

Read the article and tell me if this sounds like the similar or exact modus operandi being used in another little SRD initiative called “Open Spaces”?

During the meeting the following question was asked, “Does Dr. Morton, our Minister and an elected representative support the Open Spaces proposal?” Mr. Henderson replied. “Parts of it”. Mr. Henderson was then asked what parts of Open Spaces, Dr. Morton supported. Mr. Henderson replied something to the effect of, “I don’t know”. Mr. Henderson was then asked what parts of Open Spaces did Dr. Morton not support and he again replied, “I don’t know”.

So he claims knowledge that Dr. Morton supports parts of it, but apparently has no idea what part(s) he supports. And since Dr. Morton apparently only supports parts of Open Spaces, then it is obvious (to me anyway) that there must be parts he does not support. Mr. Henderson, apparently does not know what parts Dr. Morton, the Minister responsible for “Open Spaces” does not support.

For those of you that are sitting at the back of the class, Mr. Cliff Henderson is the SRD representative that apparently wants “Open Spaces” quickly included in the next Alberta Hunting Regulations. This opinion was certainly shared by many at the meeting.

For an “open and transparent” government, this thing is as clear as mud. By the way, my e-mails and letters to Government representatives remain unanswered… some sent more than six weeks ago. The Liberals not only replied in less than one week, but I received a follow-up call looking for additional information. Last year I was a card carrying member of the Alberta Conservative Party. Regards, Mike

[Waxy]

Originally Posted by chevy427

funny how all the seagulls are quit about misinformation now

Yeah, all's quiet on the western front alright.

There's no more excuses left, the information is all out there.

It's put up or shut up time...

Waxy

[Waxy]

Originally Posted by Bull Shooter

http://issues.albertawilderness.ca/B.../AR0210BH1.pdf

Cliff Henderson aside, I COMPLETELY disagree with the content of this letter.

It is interesting to see something internal from the "other side" though. It reads much the same as a letter from the OHV side - everything is predetermined, our riding areas are being massively impacted (cut back) by gov't, and nothing we do seems to have much impact.

If you want to see who's "winning", just look at a map of the available OHV areas in Alberta today compared to a map from 10, or even 2, years ago. It sure as heck isn't the "powerful and well funded" OHV lobby. What a joke.

Anyhoo, that's a rant for another thread and another site.

Waxy

[Dick284]

I just called Morton's Leg. office, and told em to step up and come clean. Asked why correspondance was not getting answered, and why the ASRD staff were going to meetings, and no information is forth coming, I asked where the transparency is too.
They said they would have someone call me back.
We'll see if that even happens.

[Bull Shooter]

Waxy, in posting the AWA bulletin, my only motive was to share some information or observations on the alleged character of Cliff Henderson. I have no knowledge of the Bighorn proposal and very limited knowledge of the peripheral issues.

This goes to the heart of the meeting in Lethbridge. Decisions appeared to be made or are being made in the absence of research or supporting studies.

I’ll give you an example: SRD and Cormack Gates stated that the Open Spaces proposal had two main “drivers”. First, hunting numbers had been declining steadily since the mid-80’s and this was (apparently) due to access issues. Second, landowners needed to be compensated for the tremendous costs associated with “raising” wildlife, a public trust.

Because many of the participants present do not believe that access is a big issue in the decline of hunters, a question was asked to Dr. Gates if he had a study or research that defined access as this big issue. Dr. Gates stated that he had been analyzing an access study that was done by a gentleman sometime in the ‘80’s. Well, as it turned out, and unknown to me (and obviously Dr. Gates), the gentleman that had undertaken that study was sitting about two people down from Dr. Gates, and introduced himself to him. I am confident that this gentleman also objects to the Open Spaces proposal. There were a few red faces, and we never did hear Dr. Gates “take” on the access study.

I think most hunters believe cost and legislation are the two biggest reasons for decline in hunter numbers. Many of us believe that Open Spaces, and particularly the HFH proposal substantially increase the costs of hunting and legislation and would further drive hunting numbers down. Wait until you hear how they figure the HFH units are to be managed and who should bear the costs! It should also be recognized that hunting numbers did have a substantial increase last year.

For those of you who don’t believe that Open Spaces will go through, this year, next year or whenever (and last week I was one of you), I leave you with this chronology of quotes taken from the meeting in Lethbridge:

• “Not instituted yet... needs to be all fleshed out”
• “It’s not a done deal!”
• We would consider different proposals if they met the objectives of access and compensation
• It’s a five year pilot, sometimes you just have to put it out there and see what will happen

Thanks Dick - If you are worried or have concerns, now is not the time to be silent. We need all the support we can muster. Regards, Mike

[Copidosoma]

Originally Posted by Bull Shooter

Dr. Gates stated that he had been analyzing an access study that was done by a gentleman sometime in the ‘80’s. Well, as it turned out, and unknown to me (and obviously Dr. Gates), the gentleman that had undertaken that study was sitting about two people down from Dr. Gates, and introduced himself to him. I am confident that this gentleman also objects to the Open Spaces proposal. There were a few red faces, and we never did hear Dr. Gates “take” on the access study.

Pffft, I love it when that sort of thing happens . I wonder how long it will take him to "analyze" (read) that study?

Originally Posted by Bull Shooter

For those of you who don’t believe that Open Spaces will go through, this year, next year or whenever (and last week I was one of you), I leave you with this chronology of quotes taken from the meeting in Lethbridge:

• “Not instituted yet... needs to be all fleshed out”
• “It’s not a done deal!”
• We would consider different proposals if they met the objectives of access and compensation
• It’s a five year pilot, sometimes you just have to put it out there and see what will happen

Thanks Dick - If you are worried or have concerns, now is not the time to be silent. We need all the support we can muster. Regards, Mike

I have to say that at first I figured this whole Open Spaces thing was "much ado about nothing". I suspect it is pretty much a done deal. Won't keep me from writing letters though. Scary times indeed.

One of these days we'll have to pay for the air we breath. The money will go to industry to cover the costs for their burden of having to keep the air clean.

[Dick284]

Well Morton's office called back.
Gee the Minister is just getting around to drafting a reponse to all our inquiries.
Hmm time line is narrowing, gee he was really busy etc. hmm, perhaps this should have gone public long ago. Hmm, the Minister's hunting grounds, hmm, road to hell, hmm, ASRD staff already involved. Some of the juicy stuff I fired back. She said please be patient, it's only a pilot project yada yada yada, Hmmm Me think I'll need some blood presure pills really soon.

If you have time to be on here call the Minister's office and give them a blast.
It's toll free too:
310-0000 then 780-415-4815

Originally Posted by Dick284

Me think I'll need some blood presure pills really soon.

I am pretty sure there are no blood pressure pills left in the province. I have taken them all.

Heard the same thing at the meeting this week. What's the problem it is only a pilot project. Let's just get it going and see what happens. We can worry about the details later.

Bubba

[Kanonfodder]

What concerns me is the fact that I am only hearing about this because of this forum, why is that? With the amount of members that are media savy, and have good if not direct access to media why is this a non-starter? I have skimmed the proposels and I too was a fence sitter at first but now I am going to print it all off and really go through it. Once again as with the Metis issue I believe our best bet is thru the opposition. Send them letters send them links send them documents..flood them till they take a bite out of the government ...an election is looming THIS IS THE BEST TIME....

[bruceba]

What concerns me is the fact that I am only hearing about this because of this forum, why is that?

The reason you don't have all the media hype about this and you did with the IMHA is IMHO because the Alberta Government was trying to slide this by you as apposed to leverage votes. If you recall Morton and APOS were extremely loud back then. Funny there's a hush in the air now. I wonder how many involved in this process or argue for it are members of APOS. I also wonder if any paid employee's of AFGA or it's executive are tied to APOS and won't let their stance be known publicly? Just my recent pondering.

[bruceba]

Another pondering I recently had. What happens if they amend or modify the Wildlife Act to allow monitery gain to compensate land owners, does that become effective province wide or only to select land owners in the Pilot Project area? How could they leave the rest of the land owners out?

[bruceba]

One more pondering thought before I go. What is the cost per head for cattle grazed on public land as apposed to the cost to the public for the cost per game head compensted to the land owners in this Pilot Project?

[Vindalbakken]

Originally Posted by bruceba

Another pondering I recently had. What happens if they amend or modify the Wildlife Act to allow monitery gain to compensate land owners, does that become effective province wide or only to select land owners in the Pilot Project area? How could they leave the rest of the land owners out?

They can't.

[Vindalbakken]

Cost per head for cattle on grazing lease varies from just under $2.00/AUM to just over $2.00/AUM. For a 6 month grazing season that would amount to an annual payment of $12/cow/year.

This is just a guess, but I would think it might take at least 4 deer to eat as much as one cow so it would seem to me that one deer on a grazing lease would represent a loss of $3.00/year to the landowner in the value of grass it consumes.

Kannon you are right about only hearing it on this forum and trust me this is being read by the right people to get it spread around. Our first problem is that it has just come to anyones attention maybe three weeks ago. It took two weeks to get anyone to admit that it was actually going on. The second problem is that we aren’t media savvy, but we’re working on that as well. I do know that an e-mail was making it around Calgary the last couple of days and more groups have been contacted to get the word out. If you know anyone that this info can be sent to get it to them or send us there contact information. I started sending it to companies that I know have a hunter in there midst’s and it invariably gets even non hunters wound up. The provincial Lib’s have it already and have a position already posted on there site, and now it is letters to the editor and hopefully we can get a credible reporter to take this on.

If there is a group you think can help get it to them.

MAV

[Pathfinder76]

I recieved a call from the local PC candidates campaign team the other night asking if they could secure my vote. I said no. Not unless they did something and did it now about this pilot project. He imediatly asked for my email address telling me that he would forward any information about the progression of this project. I got the distinct impression that I was not the first to cite Open Spaces as a voting determinant.

[270WIN]

This is an excerpt from Bob Scammell's column in the Red Deer Advocate, Jan 24/08. Scammell is quoting Gordon Kerr a respected director of Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division (retired).

"I find this proposed program to be the largest disruption and potential problem to wildlife management in the past 100 years. To think it is being designed behind closed doors in the absence of the hunters and anglers of this province is entirely unacceptable and diabolical. In the year in which the Alberta Fish and Game Association is celebrating its centenial, there could surely be no greater insult" .

My own personal project for today will be to craft my letter to Ted Morton with copies to the Premier and my MLA. Hope lots of the rest of you will do the same.

[Kanonfodder]

Make sure you have a cc at the bottom to the opposition Liberals, and send those copies. Nothing will garner attention more than a sitting MP realizing his opposite has that info as well

[bruceba]

I found this on a site in the US. Possibly a look at huntings future in Alberta.



LOCKED GATES , THE KING’S DEER & CABELA’S, HUNTERS FACE CROSSROADS

Since George Custer made “the last stand” a household expression at the Battle of the Little Bighorn, Montana has become famous as a place of gritty resistance to unwelcome powers.

Hunters and anglers in the Treasure State soon will take an irrevocable step on the path either toward a last stand for a democratic public hunting tradition or toward making our heirs into watchers of the king’s deer. That step to be taken in Montana likely will spell no-return to a democratic hunting heritage for any state in the USA - given that Montana is just about the strongest hold-out state against American hunting becoming an European clone.

I have long held hope that on-going discussions about landowners and sportsmen in local areas would, over time, produce a new ‘good neighbors’ deal that could resolve conflicts.

Cabela’s Inc has ended that hope for me. Their ‘trophy hunting property’ real estate marketing program means there is no longer any time for more congenial social interactions to work. Cabela’s is simply too powerful a marketing tool; they are sucking all the time out of the privatization of hunting debate. I now predict that the irrevocable step I describe above will be taken sometime in 2008.

How did we get where we are? History often drives the future, and I’ve long believed that hunters have weakened their power by failing to grasp the length and breath of privatization in our national past.

Conflict between two cultures of the hunt, one democratic the other oligarchic, have spanned the entire history of the USA. The momentum across history, to date, has been for democratic public hunting to weaken slowly against a strengthening dominant social value that ranks people according to their wealth.

Three hundred years ago, New England puritan colonists drove yeoman subsistence hunters off land owned by the hunter in order to give the property over to a farmer. In the 1840’s, wealthy Chicago sports sent out hired thugs to protect their ‘hunting clubs’ from trespass by locals who had previously roamed freely across the Illinois countryside.

In his 1856 classic book: “Complete Manual For The Young Sportsman” Frank Forester wrote: “On the waters of Chesapeake Bay . . . the shores for the most part belonging to comparatively few and wealthy proprietors, the points and islands being, as I have observed, ordinarily rented by clubs of sportsmen, and the excellence and actual value of the game being of sufficient importance to render its protection an object, the laws are rigidly enforced . . .”

The U.S. Supreme Court in 1842 decided that wild animals are public property; this has sustained a public sense of ownership of the game. But it has not resolved the struggle to enjoy the rewards of hunting either through opening or closing access to America’s hunting grounds.

Fast-Forward to 2008: though in retreat, a democratic public hunting tradition continues to exist. It is strongest in states blessed with large areas of public lands and waters; it is near death in states with little public land. This creates a temptation to bet all the chips for preservation of public hunting by ordinary people on public land management. This, however, does not work.

First, there simply are too many hunters to be accommodated with quality opportunities on existing public lands. Second, the concentration of public hunters on National Forests, BLM lands and state lands has the predictable effect of scaring game onto adjacent private land – particularly private lands with little or no hunting pressure. Over-reliance on public lands by hunters and anglers thus feeds the privatization process instead of providing a public alternative.

To sustain itself, our American hunting and angling community needs 12-15 million people with a license in their pocket. Since public lands and waters can’t carry that load, hunters and anglers have to face up to the challenge of making a square deal with the owners of private lands.

Before talking about what a new deal might look like it’s important to note what the old deal that currently is being poisoned by money pollution once was.

Once upon a time, a hunter could call or knock on a door and simply receive permission to hunt on private property. This still happens today but it is the exception in the best of areas and a stark rarity in the rest of the country. Those landowners who still honor this ‘good neighbor’ relationship should be cherished as treasures by all sportspeople.

The getting of permission seems a straightforward process but there are some social, political and economic roots that need to be understood. First, the hunter’s reward is obvious – an opportunity to hunt on private land. His direct cost, if any, is just as obvious: he has to show a basic respect and be responsible for the property he is allowed to use. Sometimes a small fee is charged – if it doesn’t stop a hunter of ordinary economic means from hunting this fee usually isn’t considered a “privatization.” The line on that remains fuzzy.

Less obvious are the network of indirect rewards that have accrued to ‘good neighbor’ landowners. In the past, these landowners have received a high social status from hunters for their contribution to both hunting and conservation. More directly, as America urbanized and the portion of the population that owns rural land dropped below two percent, city-dwelling hunters have maintained political support for the vast array of tax-dollar subsidies that keep most rural landowners in business. Along with the Federal farm program funded by billions of tax dollars there are federal and state income tax advantages, special low property tax rates, and indirect subsidies via below-cost grazing rates, etc.

Add in the sportsmen’s license dollars that go to ‘landowner appreciation’ programs (in Montana it’s more than 11 cents of every license dollar) and we see that hunters and anglers are anteing up on their side of a ‘good neighbor’ relationship with private landowners. The one aspect in which this sometimes is not true is when hunters and anglers behave irresponsibly while on private property.

Much of the energy that drives privatization of hunting on private lands today is generated by the notion that landowners get to keep all the old rewards of being a good neighbor while raking in heaps of fresh new cash offered by wealthy sports who want exclusive access to quality opportunities.

If this remains the nature of the new deal between landowners and sportsmen then hunters have tacitly agreed to take that step I mentioned in the beginning toward creating a European clone. What our recent history proves is that two relationships don’t co-exist. As cold cash advances neighborliness retreats.

The precise terms of a new ‘square deal’ will likely be complex; forcing the negotiation to take place will be a bitter and uncertain struggle. For hunters, however, the choice is unavoidable.

Like many of the most important choices made in a society this decision likely will be made by people who actually doing nothing. It’s pretty obvious today what the ‘do nothing’ choice will mean for hunting and fishing in America in the 21st Century.
>

Funny how this paid hunting thing is sold as increased opportunity to hunters when it will probly just make less opportunity overall.