Open Spaces ? Afga Resolution

[russ]

Originally Posted by Bull Shooter

IS THIS TRUE!?!

It's not that I don't trust you Bruce, I just don't have any experience with AFGA resolutions. Regards, Mike

I can't speak for how the AFGA works, but this is how it works for the ABA. Resolutions that fail are not sent to SRD.

[russ]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Why would I have a comment...you guys have it all figured out and no matter what anyone says it's not going to matter....I'm done with this paranoid BS...have fun with it all.....please no responses because I'm done with this idiocy.

Really TJ I think it's a valid question. What's with the hostility?

[duffy4]

This is really a hot and important issue.
On this thread alone there are 122 posts. Lets see, 25 posts were Sheephunter who may or may not be against OS. 15-Bubba, 13-340 wtby and 13-Rocky mtnx.

A total of 25 concerned sportsmen, and 4 of them made over half the posts on here. Hmmmmmm! I wonder what the silent majority thinks about this issue?

Robin still on the fence and not a bit ashamed of it.

[Dick284]

Cop has it correct, Sillyness.
If we keep alienating everyone who is quietly sitting back and and reserving their opinions we will be standing alone with no one other than a bunch of hot heads supporting us.
Think before you type, and think about what your typing, a half dozen or more threads on the same subject going down the same path over and over, are making us look like a bunch of un disaplined rabble.
You guys do realize SRD, U of C and any ranchers groups can, have, and probably are laughing their guts out watching us once again turn on our own and loose sight of the prize.
But again dont take my ramblings to serious it only comes from logic.

[Rob Miskosky]

Dick is correct. I'm tired of posters trying to accuse others for no better reason than to sound brave on a message board. I've deleted so many posts recently that it's rediculous. My "BAN" button is now going to take precedence. Many of you should be embarrassed by your actions and they will no longer be tolerated. If you can't discuss this issue properly...

[Dick284]

Thank you Rob.
My PM says the rest of my thoughts.

[bruceba]

A total of 25 concerned sportsmen, and 4 of them made over half the posts on here. Hmmmmmm! I wonder what the silent majority thinks about this issue?

duffy4 you asked so I'll respond.
I am extremely grateful to the few guys who have spent the time and effort to keep us updated on this, what IMHO I call the PAID HUNTING SCAM,
With out their persistence we'd all be in the dark while this was rammed through. Still sitting arms crossed feet firmly planted and damn proud of it.

[Waxy]

Originally Posted by Dick284

Cop has it correct, Sillyness.
If we keep alienating everyone who is quietly sitting back and and reserving their opinions we will be standing alone with no one other than a bunch of hot heads supporting us.
Think before you type, and think about what your typing, a half dozen or more threads on the same subject going down the same path over and over, are making us look like a bunch of un disaplined rabble.
You guys do realize SRD, U of C and any ranchers groups can, have, and probably are laughing their guts out watching us once again turn on our own and loose sight of the prize.
But again dont take my ramblings to serious it only comes from logic.

I understand the point you're making, and some may feel that way, hopefully most do not.

I think that the vast majority of dicussion here on OS has been very constructive. Sure there's a lot of it, but it's an open discussion board, and it's a VERY important issue. It's the off season too, so there's not much else to talk about.

I for one don't think SRD, the U of C, or any ranchers are sitting back and laughing. I think they're realizing that this thing is not going to be so easy to push through as they thought it would be, and that there is real opposition to it that isn't going away any time soon. I haven't seen any amount of infighting here that would give me a warm and fuzzy if I was on their side. I've seen pretty much unanimous opposition (including IMHO the "silent majority"), with a few undecideds, and a few blow outs here and there that are to be expected.

Waxy

[russ]

Originally Posted by duffy4

This is really a hot and important issue.
On this thread alone there are 122 posts. Lets see, 25 posts were Sheephunter who may or may not be against OS. 15-Bubba, 13-340 wtby and 13-Rocky mtnx.

A total of 25 concerned sportsmen, and 4 of them made over half the posts on here. Hmmmmmm! I wonder what the silent majority thinks about this issue?

Robin still on the fence and not a bit ashamed of it.

For most people Open Spaces is 100% unethical, so they see nothing to debate. Every person I have handed out information to has had a 100% NEGATIVE response save 1. That's right 1.

Apparently now that the internet is here, if I don't flap my jaws and tickle the keyboard I'm voiceless. Well, here I am and I am saying

NO to OPEN SPACES!

Okay, y'all got that?

[Rockymtnx]

Yes this idiocy has gotten out of hand. Here we are a group of hunters and sportsman fighting and bickering.
As an active and informed AFGA member I know that there is no conspiracy going on here.
What's done is done. We can't change the past. Instead do something about the future.
As suggested by a few others I will stay out of the big boys discussions.
Time to take a breather and a break.
See you around.

Dan







If you want to read about conspiracies here are a few for you.

U.S. military caused the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami
Popular Arab news services claim the U.S. and Indian militaries deliberately caused the Indian Ocean tsunamis with electromagnetic pulse technology.


Kentucky Fried Chicken makes black men impotent
It is sometimes claimed that the Kentucky Fried Chicken franchise is owned by the Ku Klux Klan, and the chicken is laced with a drug that makes only black men impotent.


The Nazis had a Moon Base
Esoteric Hitlerists and conspiracy theorists interested in Nazi mysticism and World War II have speculated that the Germans landed on the Moon as early as 1942.


Apollo 11 Moon Landings were faked by NASA
Proponents of the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations allege that the Apollo Moon Landings never took place, and were faked by NASA with possible CIA support

[ABwhitetail]

Originally Posted by Waxy

I understand the point you're making, and some may feel that way, hopefully most do not.

I think that the vast majority of discussion here on OS has been very constructive. Sure there's a lot of it, but it's an open discussion board, and it's a VERY important issue. It's the off season too, so there's not much else to talk about. Waxy

I haven't said Boo in any of these threads about Open Spaces, but I have been listening very Closely and I think we can all agree that this issue is very important. That being said, I think what Dick284 said is exactly how I feel as well.

Originally Posted by Waxy

I for one don't think SRD, the U of C, or any ranchers are sitting back and laughing.

Waxy

I think they may be.....There is no doubt the information out there can be sketchy at times, but it can be found...
This board has had lots of good information on it, but you have to funnel through all the BS to find it....

I know one thing that I see the SRD, UofC and ranchers laughing at...is how people on a public forum can hide behind their computers and start trashing guys that are known to be outdoorsmen through the public eye. The actions of these guys who I refer to are out there for all of us to witness and therefor conclude (on our own) what these guys represent. From that alone I can't help but think that these guys want whats best for outdoorsmen and the activities they love....

Guys like TJ and Rob M are well known figures in the outdoor/Alberta communities. These guys live and breath Hunting/Fishing and other outdoor activities as much as I do (and probably more).....How do I know this....Well pick up any local magazine, watch WILD TV, browse the Internet....it is there for us to see.

Guys like Rob and TJ are part of public spot lite because the care and love what they do....Either of them can correct me if I am wrong...but I don't think they do it for the recognition or million dollar endorsement deals....

The fact that some people who claim to be as passionate about hunting in Alberta continuously attack these individuals is retarded....All either of them have done is try and push us to find the FACTS....One of these facts is they do not want to state loudly what side of the fence they are on....I for one respect that....why?...because their attempts to have us outdoorsmen truly find out the facts, from the sources, and come up with our own "unclouded" perspective on this issue; should not only allow us to come together as one (since we all want what's best for hunting now and in the future) but allow some of us to responsibly and accurately represent ALL hunters and outdoormen on this issue...including themselves...

Originally Posted by Rob Miskosky

Dick is correct. I'm tired of posters trying to accuse others for no better reason than to sound brave on a message board...

This is the truth...this is exactly how some of the posts on this topic have come across...and unfortunately it effects peoples perspective on this whole issue.

What side of the fence am I on?....Well I, like others, am somewhat undecided....Bottom line is I want what is best to preserve game and hunting for myself, my kids, and generations beyond....

Once I can filter through all the BS, and get right down to the facts, I will then pick a side...those of you whom have information....keep it coming....

but lets stop with all the other crap....

[Bull Shooter]

Perhaps some of you think or are suggesting that I am among those spreading “BS” and conspiracy theories as I had at least one PM to that effect. You are entitled to your opinions… informed or otherwise.

I do not claim to represent anyone, nor have I ever made that claim. In fact, although I belong to several outdoor organizations and participate and make extraordinary financial contributions to the same (including my local F&GA), I have gone out of my way to note that my quest for information and answers is in no way tied to my representation in these fine organizations. I feel it allows be a bit more freedom in my approach.

With the obvious exception of ONE single post on page 4 of this thread, I fail to see anything that remotely suggests some sort of conspiracy theory. I think the rest of the thread was valid (especially to some) and for the most part entirely constructive. There was some criticism and there were some ideas how things could be made better in the future. If individuals or groups do not take to that kind of criticism or discussion how can we expect to evolve into better and more productive representatives?

I think it is also important for readers to remember that not all the information or misinformation on the Open Spaces proposal and its delivery has been posted to the board. I guess this is true for many topics. There are likely thousands of PM’s that have been passed on this subject between board members. Perhaps some of the clarity in these board discussions has been overlooked or clouded by that knowledge or recognition and the information or misinformation contained in PM’s. A little food for thought… for what it is worth. Regards, Mike

[Chet]

I agree with much of what ABwhitetail has to say. Debate is a healthy thing and it helps people decide where they stand on important issues like this. The OSA threads on here have done a lot of good in bringing awareness to these issues. When i made a presentation at our rod and gun club's wild banquet last week about OSA, I tried to be fairly unbiased and encourage people to do some research and form their own opinion on it. Personally, I do not support the pilot projects based on the information I have, although I think there are some positive elements to them. I don't know why some people on this board are so concerned about where other board members stand on these issues. Is knowing where someone else stands going to change your opinion or are you just looking to argue with people? Do your research, share information, form an opinion and try to support it. Hopefully the best interest of Alberta's outdoorspeople will prevail.

Chet

[Kanonfodder]

Well Duffy its not so m uch who posts what its whos reading the information, if you add up all the views on the threads about open spaces the numbers are significant, yes its alot of the same people probably reading but with so much info to read some of us that don't post much are forming opinions as well

I am firmly in the no camp as of now.

[Rob Miskosky]

Originally Posted by Bull Shooter

With the obvious exception of ONE single post on page 4 of this thread, I fail to see anything that remotely suggests some sort of conspiracy theory.

Mike, you have always been one of the posters on this board that brings valid information and a solid argument to the table in all discussions. I wish more would post like you do and I applaud you for this attitude towards others and their opinions.

Having said that, in regards to your above quote, if you saw the many, many posts that have been deleted regarding conspiracies and attacks on others you may not have written the aforementioned. Thus, the reason why I will be watching these threads with a quick trigger finger.

Thanks again for being one of the good guys.

Rob

[Rob Miskosky]

Thanks so much for the post ABwhitetail.

Both TJ and I (and I assume everybody on this board) have an unconditional love for the outdoors and the fish and wildlife we pursue. Unfortunately, some of us have to take some abuse for the positions we hold. I have been stopped several times by people I don't know who recognize me and most times they are sincere and are happy to meet me. On other occasions I have been hollared at and called every name in the book by somebody who didn't agree with things I've said or wrote or the position I've taken (in fact I thought a game farmer was going to kill me one year at the Edmonton Boat and Sportsman Show - the booth next to us said they nearly called security). At any rate, I do love what I do for a living, but what comes with that is quite often the disdain of others. So, me and guys like TJ have to be prepared for just about anything when somebody recognizes you or takes part in a discussion, like on this board. It's not exactly a fun part of the job - not knowing if a person likes you or not. But, whether it's unfair or not, I guess it's part of the job... sometimes I just wish it wasn't.

Thanks again for the post.

Rob

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by duffy4

This is really a hot and important issue.
On this thread alone there are 122 posts. Lets see, 25 posts were Sheephunter who may or may not be against OS. 15-Bubba, 13-340 wtby and 13-Rocky mtnx.

A total of 25 concerned sportsmen, and 4 of them made over half the posts on here. Hmmmmmm! I wonder what the silent majority thinks about this issue?

Robin still on the fence and not a bit ashamed of it.

My view on this subject are very well known on the subject of paid hunting , game ranching,etc.
Just because I don't jump into these posts does not mean I won't speak my peace at he AFGA convention this year....

Cat

[gunslinger]

[QUOTE][/Having said that, in regards to your above quote, if you saw the many, many posts that have been deleted regarding conspiracies and attacks on others you may not have written the aforementioned. Thus, the reason why I will be watching these threads with a quick trigger finger.
QUOTE]

thank goodness your around here deleting posts rob, i am starting to enjoy watching the threads now that the cheap shots and kids posting dumb stuff are gone now.

I for one know what these two guys do for the hunting heritage and alberta and i applaude you guys for this, all the time you spend writing and researching stuff is only for the bettering of all us hunters. keep up the good work rob and tj.

i took a break from the board for a little while and i enjoy seeing some postiive stuff aorund here again.....now come on hunting season so we can all share some photos.

[Huntnut]

Now that all the crap is done with-(thanks Rob). I am one of those people that is sitting on the fence. While this program has merits like opening up previously unhuntable land to everyday joes there is also room for it to be abused as well. Can it lead to hunting for the rich only? I don't know. I think it would have to be very closely monitered if it was implemented. The biggest problem I have with it is the way they tried to sneak it through which makes me suspicous. I am the first to admit that i am not up to speed on it or not fully informed. While I am trying to read through all these posts to gain more knowledge of this perhaps it will become more clear. Now where's that book Open Spaces for Dummies.

Can I add one more piece of crap Huntnut.

I would also like to thank you especially Rob for allowing us to air these important concerns we have on a public forum that you provide us. Without this outlet this and probably many more important debates couldn’t be expressed with like minded citizens. If there is concern about anything that I’ve brought to the table I am more then willing to be accountable for it and with everything that has been brought forward to me I’ve brought my concerns to this place to make sure that others can also make informed decisions. I think it is important by all parties to be aware of what they say and how they say it because the intended recipient may not interrupt your full meaning or more than likely read in intent. I am and will still be passing on information as I get it whether some want to hear it or not and I will back it up with documents and correspondence that I have received. Nothing I have is exclusive and I will pass on anything I have to those that wish to see it. Secrecy and misinformation is how we got to this point so I’d rather not deal in it, when this is over I want to be able to sleep at night. If you think you might be missing something I’ll try and fill you in if I can. For those who have passed on there concerns, there well wishes and there attempts to change my mind; thank you, all are taken with your best intentions. I wish no one ill will on here not only because I don’t really know any but a handful of you but because it takes to much energy. Highly charged topics bring out the passion in people that otherwise might not engage and that’s probably where I come out on this but my passion isn’t quenched yet and OS hasn’t been squashed, so… “as I get it so will everyone here.”

Silence is deadly

Mark

Thanks Huntnut now if you want to pm me I'll send you the big bad version of OS not for dummies but by dummies (in my humble opinion).

Friday night and I don't have one whiskey in me yet, what a day.

Originally Posted by Huntnut

Now that all the crap is done with-(thanks Rob). I am one of those people that is sitting on the fence. While this program has merits like opening up previously unhuntable land to everyday joes

Maybe I don't understand OS. Can you tell me what unhuntable lands will be open to the average Joe?

Huntnut,

Reading through all the multipage threads could take you days.

I think the most damning document is the actual business analysis that Bubba put up on this forum as soon as he received it. http://www.mediafire.com/?0dyxwzz5cn9

If you want the real dope, here it is. This will tell you how many tags are taken out of the resident quota, how many years the wait times will go up on draws, how much a landowner is expected to make on a given animal, how the program is not confined to the two species everyone talks about (mule deer and elk) but extends to non draw animals as well.

This is the worst PR the government could have regarding this program and that is why it is not publically available through the sources it should be like AFGA and the UofC.

It is my belief the working group agreed to some general priciples and then the SRD staff who were tasked to develop the pilot authored the business plan. If full disclosure of this document had been made in a timely, upfront fashion the AFGA could have responed to it appropriately. By keeping this secret the local clubs were left scrambling to find info and develop a position.

I can see a person still feeling ambivalent about RAMP, but a thorough read of this business analysis should make up your mind for you about HFH.

[Duk Dog]

Originally Posted by Huntnut

I am the first to admit that i am not up to speed on it or not fully informed. While I am trying to read through all these posts to gain more knowledge of this perhaps it will become more clear. Now where's that book Open Spaces for Dummies.

Don't forget this link for additional info:

http://poli.ucalgary.ca/wildlifestewardship/

[kmac]

There is an column titled Open Spaces in the crosshairs on this project in the Sun today.
Looks like it was well researched.

Thank you Mr. Waugh.

[bowchaser]

Good to see AFGA's Wayne Lowry speaking out...


Neil Waugh: OutdoorsSat, February 16, 2008

Open Spaces in the crosshairs
By NEIL WAUGH

Email Print Write Size: A A A Share:

Facebook Digg Del.icio.us Google Stumble Upon Furl Newsvine Reddit Technorati Blinklist Feed Me Yahoo Socializer Ma.gnolia Raw Sugar Simpy Squidoo Spurl Blink Bits Rojo Blogmarks Shadows Netvouz Scuttle Co.mments Bloglines Tailrank Sitejot + Help



The Alberta Tories' Open Spaces land access pilot project is a hot topic in Alberta's hunting and fishing communities. (Neil Waugh, Sun Media)

It's been described as the thin edge of the wedge, the foot in the door. Or in the words of Wayne Lowry, the Alberta Fish and Game Association's point man on the issue, "the same old greed factor." It may also become the issue of the century at AFGA's 100th anniversary convention at Edmonton's Mayfield Inn next weekend.

Alberta opposition MLAs have piped up too. NDP environment critic David Eggan slammed the Alberta Tories' Open Spaces pilot project because it "crosses the line," while Liberal Sustainable Resource Development watchdog Bill Bonko branded it as a "rushed, short-term plan" that "sets a dangerous precedent for future land use decisions."

Alberta SRD Minister Ted Morton sees his land access program - which he plans to test on two wildlife management units on the Milk River Ridge and the ranchlands around Waterton Lakes National Park as early as next fall - in an entirely different light.

"The goal is to increase habitat, herd size and the number of tags available to public hunters," the minister said in a letter to his detractors.

He talked about "building new bridges" and a "new spirit of cooperation" between hunters, anglers and landowners, which will be a "win for habitat, a win for wildlife and a win for Alberta hunters and fishermen."




Whatever your take on Open Spaces, it's been heating up hunting and fishing message boards for weeks and has become the talker issue of the Alberta provincial election among outdoors men and women.

Even the soft-handed city boys and girls in the campaign media vans have yet to stumble on it.

Morton put the problem Albertans are facing in focus - after the PC party has done diddley squat to control the raging boom, which is now threatening to consume the province's landscape and fundamentally change our way of outdoor life.

"Right now we've got a problem," Morton sighed. "The fish and wildlife belong to the people but in central and southern Alberta two-thirds of the land is private.

"Without the habitat we don't have quality game," he continued. "But keeping that habitat costs money."

He then tells the sad story of a patch of bush he used to hunt west of Nanton that was "thick with sharptails" until the rancher flattened it with a Cat so he could graze more cattle, and the grouse disappeared.

So Morton - with the help of a secretive little stakeholder group co-chaired by a head honcho from the Alberta Beef Producers called Rick Burton - came up with a two-part plan to encourage landowners to preserve wildlife habitat with the oldest inducement known to man: money.

The "stewardship" group became instantly suspicious when it imposed a gag order on its members because yakking to guys like me, apparently, "is not consistent with building trust" the group's "terms of reference" document reveals.

The first component of Open Spaces - called Recreational Access Management Program, RAMP for short - is the simplest, while at the same time the least likely to go province-wide.

Landowners get payments called "hunter/angler days" for allowing public on their property and preserving critical fish and wildlife habitat.

Morton called it "pretty straight forward" with one exception - where's the money coming from?

Considering the Fish and Wildlife Division has been limping along on a starvation diet since the cutbacks in the mid '90s, sucking even more money out of it to pay landowners and ramp up RAMP would be like squeezing blood from a rock.

But it's Open Spaces' second component - called Hunting for Habitat - which Morton admits is "the most controversial one."

The minister's ambitious plan is to take the elk herd on the Milk River Ridge - which he says is being "suppressed" at the request of the ranch owners at 200 animals - to 1,000 and make "500 or 600" more harvest tags available to Alberta hunters. It will also give hunters access to land - including the Mormon Church's sprawling Deseret Ranch - which has been off limits for decades.

But to make it happen, he must cut a deal with the devil and provide the landowners with "10 - 15%" of the tags. They would be allowed to sell them off to either resident hunters or an outfitter for whatever the market will bear.

"There's no incentive for the landowner to provide wildlife habitat," the ABP's Burton said. "It's simply an economic loss.

"This framework was designed so it would," he added. "It's a fallacy to consider this paid hunting."

Morton also feels the pay-to-play argument is a stretch.

"So taxes are the beginning of the slide into socialism and communism," he said.

"Sure it's a risk, but do I, Ted Morton, want paid hunting in Alberta? No."

But the AFGA's Lowry isn't buying it.

"We've worked really hard to retain wildlife as a public resource," he said about the association's century of conservation. "This takes our public resources and moves it over to the private sector and lets the market dictate the price."

He reckons bull elk tags could sell as high as $10,000 each.

So is this the thin edge of the wedge to paid hunting, Wayne?

"Absolutely," he shot back.

And he doesn't buy the argument that this is a harmless pilot project either.

"If you give a piece of the action to a small group of landowners and they're making some half decent money," Lowry said, "everyone is going to want in on it.

"Even if it's a pilot project, it's going to be extra hard to yank it back."

He also pointed out that the Hunting for Habitat program looks suspiciously similar to the pay-to-play hunting the Deseret runs on its huge ranch in Utah where public hunting is severely restricted by tough access rules including a difficult shooting test.

"I think the two zones were picked for a couple of reasons," Lowry continued. "The biggest one being Ted Morton hunts in both."

A statement that Morton doesn't deny.

"I'm still listening," Morton said. "If I'm satisfied with the support from the fish and game and hunting community, I have the authority to go through with it. I know I'm not going to persuade the skeptics," he added. "Let's give the thing a chance. Let's try it. If it doesn't work, we will can it."

Morton will get a clearer picture when AFGA delegates vote on an Open Spaces resolution next weekend

[gunslinger]

Just got off the phone with a friend of mine GARRY DONALD OF BIG BUCK MAGAZINE, as i sent in my story of my whitetail this year and he brought it up to me about this happenign in alberta and actually has a writeup about it in the upcoming issue,
he says its a good writeup , word is getting around about this thing in a big way as i heard about it from some other guys not from our province.

[Waxy]

Originally Posted by Rob Miskosky

Having said that, in regards to your above quote, if you saw the many, many posts that have been deleted regarding conspiracies and attacks on others you may not have written the aforementioned. Thus, the reason why I will be watching these threads with a quick trigger finger.

Rob

I guess this is why I haven't seen the abuse and attacks that you're speaking of.

I truly appreciate the work you do, and the other moderators as well, in not only keeping this board pointed in the right direction, but in supplying the forum in the first place. I would be at a complete loss on many issues had I not discovered this forum and the information here.

Thank you.

Waxy

P.S. To the best of my knowledge, I haven't had any of my posts deleted. I try to keep it civil and productive, but try as I might, I'm no angel at times. I apologize if I've been a pain in the butt, it's certainly not my intent.

[Waxy]

Thanks for posting the article Bowchaser, and thanks to Neil Waugh for getting the info out to the public.

I got a great deal on last year's 12 issues of the Alberta Outdoorsmen at the sportsmen's show , and I've been reading them constantly since.

I found this very interesting passage in the June issue in an article entitled "Nickels and Dimes" by none other than Neil Waugh.

The article focuses on the lack of funding for SRD and habitat conservation, with Waugh chastising the Tories, but largely praising Morton for his efforts.

Here's the quote -

"Although Alberta hunters should stay tuned for some more habitat retention programs including financial incentives for landowner stewardship that "will enhance hunting opportunities across the board." (He's quoting Morton.)

There's a pilot project already in the works. (OS I would assume.) Except it won't involve any pay to play Morton insisted.

"That's out," he (Morton) insisted, "I made that clear, there will be no direct fee for access on my watch."

Very interesting little snippet. It shows just how long OS has been brewing.

More importantly, it catches Morton lying, or at the very least, telling half truths. I realize that in his latest letter he emphasizes that the payments for RAMP will come from the government, and therefore won't be a "direct fee for access", but as many here have pointed out, direct or indirect, there's still a payment, and it's still payment for access. There really is no arguing the case for HFH.

Somewhere along the line, this thing really jumped the track...

Waxy