Open Spaces ? Afga Resolution

Originally Posted by Rob Miskosky

Of course there is. Like I said, it's a day where hunters and hunting are honoured across the province. If you remember correctly there was a fair amount of positive coverage last year. The more things we have like a Provincial Hunting Day and a Hunting Heritage Act, the more protection we have in continuing our outdoor pursuits. How can you find any bad in that?

OS may be the one thing that will take away our ( our kids) chance to continue their outdoor pursuits.

[Rob Miskosky]

By your statement Waxy, nobody remembers Theuran Fleury for what he did, they just remember that he was a drunk.

Why would we give a crap about our hunting heritage if it is left to a few rich Americans and Europeans.

Morton is simply giving us a couple of lollypops before he fills our teeth.

Originally Posted by Rob Miskosky

By your statement Waxy, nobody remembers Theuran Fleury for what he did, they just remember that he was a drunk.

The true measure of a great man is the legacy he leaves.

Let's hope Morton is not in cabinet any longer so that we can remember some of the good things he has done rather than the terrible thing he is about to.

[Waxy]

Originally Posted by Rob Miskosky

By your statement Waxy, nobody remembers Theuran Fleury for what he did, they just remember that he was a drunk.

No Rob, that's not the point at all. The point is, that sports, politics, etc... are about the here and now. Actions, or inaction, right now will be equally, or more so, important and remembered than what you've done in the past. You can't rest on your laurels, you will be (and should be) judged on what you are doing now. Those past good deeds can be tarnished, or erased, by bad choices or actions in the present.

Which leads me to your analogy. What do you think is the first thing (or maybe the second for Flames fans) that pops into most people's minds when they think of Fleury? Scoring key goals for the Flames, or his downward spiral into alcoholism? Do you not think his drinking and other issues tarnished his career? Obviously they did, or he wouldn't be your example.

Let's face it, people are judged by the sum of their actions, past and present. Poor Theo has had to learn that the hard way I'm sure.

Waxy

P.S. What about my questions regarding the Hunting Heritage Act?

[Copidosoma]

Originally Posted by Rob Miskosky

By your statement Waxy, nobody remembers Theuran Fleury for what he did, they just remember that he was a drunk.

I remember him for being a squeeky little bugger on the ice who would put one in the net when you didn't want it. Hated the guy but would have loved to have him on our side.

What happens to someone like that at the end of (or to end) their career is unfortunate and even tragic. Doesn't change what they accomplished. It is a commentary on the industry they work in as much as anything.

[209x50]

Originally Posted by Rob Miskosky

Actually he has not only strongly opposed the IMHA but has also worked hard to open many new areas to Sunday hunting, created a Provincial Hunting Day to honour hunters and hunting, lowered the age limit for new hunters to hunt with a rifle, and strongly supports a Hunting Heritage Act.

More than any other minister I have worked under over the past 10 years.

You have to give credit where credit is due.

I see it and you see it and many others too, but some people have very narrow outlooks on life capable of dealing with only one issue at a time. It is very childish to judge a person based on one incident, isn't it? For example how many people would still be driving if one DUI cost your license for life? And that only a single example life is full of them.
The average minister in SRD have the motivation of a mushroom.

[Waxy]

Originally Posted by 209x50

I see it and you see it and many others too, but some people have very narrow outlooks on life capable of dealing with only one issue at a time.

Fortunately, that's not the case here.

It is very childish to judge a person based on one incident, isn't it?

Not at all, it depends on the magnitude of the incident. Actions have consequences.

For example how many people would still be driving if one DUI cost your license for life? And that only a single example life is full of them.

Everyone that's smart enough not to drink and drive?

I agree, life is full of single incidents. A "simple" DUI might not be that serious and is forgiveable, but what about DUI causing death? What about a murder? Those are single incidents. Should people not be judged on those incidents and face the consequences of them?

The average minister in SRD have the motivation of a mushroom.

Sad but true. However, I'd take inaction over OSA EVERY TIME.

Waxy

[209x50]

Originally Posted by Waxy

Fortunately, that's not the case here.
Waxy

Really?

[Waxy]

Originally Posted by 209x50

Really?

Yep.

Waxy

[209x50]

At the AFGA meeting a fellow stood up and spoke. He claimed he was a land owner but not in 108 or 300. Said he would sue for the right to charge for hunting on his land if OSA went through. My question is why have none of you asked yourselves why this hasn't happened already? Why haven't landowners banded together and sued for the right to charge for hunting? It happens all over in the US.
This is 2008 folks and things change, some for the good others for the bad, it is only a matter of time before such a suit is brought before a judge. Wouldn't you rather have had the opportunity to be proactive in negotiating a deal rather than reading what a judge decides is fair?
Oh that land owner who spoke up, he was sitting at Bubba and Lurch's table, maybe they could shed some light on what he was thinking.

Originally Posted by 209x50

At the AFGA meeting a fellow stood up and spoke. He claimed he was a land owner but not in 108 or 300. Said he would sue for the right to charge for hunting on his land if OSA went through. My question is why have none of you asked yourselves why this hasn't happened already? Why haven't landowners banded together and sued for the right to charge for hunting? It happens all over in the US.
This is 2008 folks and things change, some for the good others for the bad, it is only a matter of time before such a suit is brought before a judge. Wouldn't you rather have had the opportunity to be proactive in negotiating a deal rather than reading what a judge decides is fair?
Oh that land owner who spoke up, he was sitting at Bubba and Lurch's table, maybe they could shed some light on what he was thinking.

If I recall correctly, that fella was not a landowner. He was speaking about other landowners and how they could sue for not recieving the same benefit as their neighbours.
Were you at the AGM?

[qballs]

Originally Posted by 209x50

At the AFGA meeting a fellow stood up and spoke. He claimed he was a land owner but not in 108 or 300. Said he would sue for the right to charge for hunting on his land if OSA went through. My question is why have none of you asked yourselves why this hasn't happened already? Why haven't landowners banded together and sued for the right to charge for hunting? It happens all over in the US.
This is 2008 folks and things change, some for the good others for the bad, it is only a matter of time before such a suit is brought before a judge. Wouldn't you rather have had the opportunity to be proactive in negotiating a deal rather than reading what a judge decides is fair?
Oh that land owner who spoke up, he was sitting at Bubba and Lurch's table, maybe they could shed some light on what he was thinking.

209 - Why would you EVER think of negotiating our wildlife. I think a better approach would be to all work towards something where this type of scenario could NEVER happen again!!!

Originally Posted by 209x50

At the AFGA meeting a fellow stood up and spoke. He claimed he was a land owner but not in 108 or 300. Said he would sue for the right to charge for hunting on his land if OSA went through. My question is why have none of you asked yourselves why this hasn't happened already? Why haven't landowners banded together and sued for the right to charge for hunting? It happens all over in the US.
This is 2008 folks and things change, some for the good others for the bad, it is only a matter of time before such a suit is brought before a judge. Wouldn't you rather have had the opportunity to be proactive in negotiating a deal rather than reading what a judge decides is fair?
Oh that land owner who spoke up, he was sitting at Bubba and Lurch's table, maybe they could shed some light on what he was thinking.

Since Lurch is no longer with us (on AO at least) I guess it is up to me to answer this question. That was so nice of you to point out that Lurch and I were at the AGM. Voicing our opinion and fighting for what we believe in. Did I meet you there? If I did I apologize I just do not remember you.

Yes there was a gentleman at our table who stood up and said this. Not sure if he actually owned land or was just making a point. His point being the inequality of the programs. Basically it is what is good for one is good for all. We have already heard rumblings landowners in 108 are upset they not only had no idea what was going on but that they were not included. The hutterite colonies in 108 have significant amounts of land, and yes some of it is great habitat, and they had never heard of this until we started asking question.

Why has this not happened already? Well maybe because nobody would pay. You are right a landowner could possibly go to court and gain the right to charge people to "access" his land. This would include all people not just hunters. They right now can not go to court and gain the right to sell the "wildlife" that is sometimes on his land sometimes not they do not own the wildlife. HFH would give them ownership of the wildlife. This goes directly against one of the guiding principles of the WG "Wildlife is a public trust".

Yes I would have loved to have had the opportunity to be proactive. Unfortunately in the infinite wisdom of all involved they thought it would be better to not tell anyone what was going on (except for a select few ). Now we have this. Paid Hunting.

I would like to ask you a question now. After this pilot goes into effect, what is to stop every landowner in Alberta from going to court and demanding tags for the wildlife on his land?

Bubba

[209x50]

Originally Posted by bubbasno1

I would like to ask you a question now. After this pilot goes into effect, what is to stop every landowner in Alberta from going to court and demanding tags for the wildlife on his land?

Bubba

Absolutely nothing, the same as what was stopping them before OSA, absolutely nothing. At least if the pilot is in place the framework for any judges decision is already made and the landowners would have to meet that criteria and we would know what we are getting. Does it make sense to say the OSA WG negotiations are critical and too important to get screwed up by bluster and rumors?

[209x50]

Originally Posted by bubbasno1

Why has this not happened already? Well maybe because nobody would pay. Bubba

I don't know what you grow on your land Bubba but I'll bet it is smokable! JK
The line up would make yourhead spin, I lived in Pincher Creek and I kinow how the parking fees and price per point schemes worked.

[Pathfinder76]

Why would the landowner all of a sudden have to meet OS criteria for access, but would not be bound under current law?

[Pathfinder76]

I don't know what you grow on your land Bubba but I'll bet it is smokable! JK
The line up would make yourhead spin, I lived in Pincher Creek and I kinow how the parking fees and price per point schemes worked.

I live in Pincher Creek, and you're out to lunch. Good grief.

[bruceba]

209x50 sorry if I missed something over all these multitudes of posts regarding OS but were you at the meeting when Cormack Gates came to Lethbridge to meet with the Gentlemen that were opposed to OS?

Originally Posted by 209x50

Absolutely nothing, the same as what was stopping them before OSA, absolutely nothing. At least if the pilot is in place the framework for any judges decision is already made and the landowners would have to meet that criteria and we would know what we are getting. Does it make sense to say the OSA WG negotiations are critical and too important to get screwed up by bluster and rumors?

The thing stopping them before OSA is a little thing called the Alberta Wildlife Act. Pretty sure the law frowns upon selling things you do not own. Not a lawyer but I feel pretty confident in saying this.

I have stated this before. There should be no negotiations of OS it should be scraped and we start over. I know. I know. People have put a lot of time and effort into this lets just see what happens. How about lets stop right here take a deep breath and then get rid of OS before we are so far down the trail we can not get back.

We have been down this road of bluster and rumors before. Right from the first post people have been telling us we are misinformed, this is all rumors, don't worry about it. It is a good thing people brought this forward or still to this day nobody except for the select few would have any idea what is going on.

Bubba

[Duk Dog]

Originally Posted by bubbasno1

The thing stopping them before OSA is a little thing called the Alberta Wildlife Act. Pretty sure the law frowns upon selling things you do not own. Not a lawyer but I feel pretty confident in saying this.

I have stated this before. There should be no negotiations of OS it should be scraped and we start over. I know. I know. People have put a lot of time and effort into this lets just see what happens. How about lets stop right here take a deep breath and then get rid of OS before we are so far down the trail we can not get back.

We have been down this road of bluster and rumors before. Right from the first post people have been telling us we are misinformed, this is all rumors, don't worry about it. It is a good thing people brought this forward or still to this day nobody except for the select few would have any idea what is going on.

Bubba

I'm not positive but I think the way around it, and the way it has been done, is they are not charging to hunt wildlife. They charge a "parking" fee or a "hauling your animal out" fee. Although it is quite easy to read between the lines of what is really taking place they are not technically charging you for the act of hunting wildlife.

Originally Posted by 209x50

I don't know what you grow on your land Bubba but I'll bet it is smokable! JK
The line up would make yourhead spin, I lived in Pincher Creek and I kinow how the parking fees and price per point schemes worked.

I have lived in and around P Creek my whole life. Never have I paid for access or parking or points. I did hear of the pay for points and that gentleman was charged and convicted if I am not mistaken. Do not know about the parking fees for hunting. I knew of an old guy on Payne Lake that used to charge a quarter to park on his land to fish. I always parked on the dam and fished just to make him mad. Ah the good ole days.

Bubba

[Waxy]

Originally Posted by 209x50

Absolutely nothing, the same as what was stopping them before OSA, absolutely nothing.

Are we forgetting about a little document called the Wildlife Act of Alberta?

At least if the pilot is in place the framework for any judges decision is already made and the landowners would have to meet that criteria and we would know what we are getting.

Yeah, that's exactly what we want, judges making a decision based on the "framework" of OSA that that exists.

That is of course, if any judge could actually nail down any criteria or specifics.

Does it make sense to say the OSA WG negotiations are critical and too important to get screwed up by bluster and rumors?

Definitely, that's why so many people are working so hard to get past them and post useful info.

Waxy

Originally Posted by bubbasno1

I have lived in and around P Creek my whole life. Never have I paid for access or parking or points. I did hear of the pay for points and that gentleman was charged and convicted if I am not mistaken. Do not know about the parking fees for hunting. I knew of an old guy on Payne Lake that used to charge a quarter to park on his land to fish. I always parked on the dam and fished just to make him mad. Ah the good ole days.

Bubba

When I had a turkey tag last year I was told that I had to rent the guest house to get permission. Guess that's not charging for hunting is it? Didn't one of the landowners at the January meeting also say that his neighbours charged for parking? Wasn't he from just south of Pincher?

[Duk Dog]

I'm pretty sure that although a landowner cannot charge you to hunt as per the wildlife act they are, I believe, well within their rights to charge you if you want to berry pick, ride your horse etc etc etc. on their private land.

Originally Posted by sheephunter

When I had a turkey tag last year I was told that I had to rent the guest house to get permission. Guess that's not charging for hunting is it?

Did you report them to F & W?

[Waxy]

Since when did two wrongs make a right?

What's the point you guys are trying to make?

There is zero logic behind the position that since illegal activity is going on, we should just legalize that activity so we can "monitor it". It's absurd.

How's about hiring some more COs or getting the RCMP involved and putting an end to the illegal activity? Now THAT makes sense.

If the point being made is that most landowners in the area are pro OS because a few of them have been breaking the rules, then again, the logic doesn't work.

Waxy

[Waxy]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

When I had a turkey tag last year I was told that I had to rent the guest house to get permission. Guess that's not charging for hunting is it?

I assume you reported this and there's an official complaint regarding this landowner on record with Fish & Wildlife?

Was there any follow up with F & W regarding the incident?

Waxy

Originally Posted by sheephunter

When I had a turkey tag last year I was told that I had to rent the guest house to get permission. Guess that's not charging for hunting is it?

Technically it is not charging for hunting. Unethical yes but not illegal. They are charging you for access not for the turkey. The choice is always there to say no thanks I will go hunt somewhere else. I personally believe it should be illegal to charge people to acces your property as well. You can either let peole on or not but charging for access is not right in my mind.

Sorry missed part of your post. Yes he did say that. He also said outfitters were paying for exclusive access to property. He also said if OS does not go through he is calling the indians/metis in to wipe out the wildlife on his land. This gentleman is one shining example of morales and ethics.

Bubba

[LongDraw]

Seems the conversation is morphing into what a landowner can and cannot charge for.

Not that I agree with it at all, but seems to me that it may have been slightly more palettable in the big picture for landowners to go after paid access, rather than trying to get vouchers for said wildlife. There is a fundamental difference.