Open Spaces ? Afga Resolution

[Rafter]

Originally Posted by 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

I am glad to hear Wayne Lowry's comments and I hope to hear that Morton does get a clear picture of the opposition to this paid hunting scheme of his. It will be interesting to see the results of of the AFGA gathering on this matter. The AFGA has a lot of influence, hopefully a no to paid hunting is communicated.

[bruceba]

Thanks again to all involved in bringing this issue forward.

"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."

IMHO if hes's not satisfied with the lack of support from the Fish and Game and Hunting community he still has the authority to go through with it under the belief that if it doesn't work they will can it.

This resolution has to be amended or changed to read AFGA is strongly against OSA. Then when it gets passed as being opposed to it then gets forwarded to the Government and SRD has to take notice. Make it read positively opposed to OSA.

[Huntnut]

Originally Posted by SNIPER

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

The way I understand this is private land that has previously not allowed hunting will now allow it-(for a fee)

[Huntnut]

Quote:

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.



This is what I have a problem with and what I think could lead to hunting for the wealthy only.

Originally Posted by Huntnut

The way I understand this is private land that has previously not allowed hunting will now allow it-(for a fee)

There is no guarantee that these landowners will participate. (for a fee)... that would mean paid hunting?

[packhuntr]

Theres also no guarantee that they wont participate.

keep a strain on er.

[Justanotherbuck2]

Its great to see a article in a newspaper to let the public know whats up..If Morton has the authority to implement this doesn't Eddy have the athority. To remove him from this position if elected, A cabinet shovel can happen at any time ..Right?

[duffy4]

Great article Niel.

It shows two views of the issue and presents some facts as well as the personal opinions or interpretations. The article is not one sided and the views of the author do not dominate and cloud the issue.

In the end the reader still has to make up their mind as to weather they like open spaces or not.

Robin in Rocky, where the sun is shining and the wind is calm and the temperature is pleasent enough for this time of year.

[Mintaka]

.

[Neil Waugh]

Thanx for the kind words boys. Stay tuned for more in my Covers and Riffles column in the next Alberta Ourdoorsmen.

[duffy4]

Originally Posted by Mintaka

I find it hard to believe that after this much time and information has been distributed that hunters have not made a decision on where they stand on Paid Hunting.

I also think it is pretty easy to figure out who is ready to open up their checkbooks for a hunt even though they have not come out and stated their stance.

IMHO


NO to OPEN SPACES!


You have to stand for something or you'll fall for anything.

I think you need some more information or you need to understand the information that is there.

If you think that hunters will have to "open their checkbook for a hunt" then you still do not understand the Open Spaces program. Hunters will NOT have to open their checkbook to hunt anything.

Have a good one!

Robin in Rocky

[wbyfireman]

Originally Posted by duffy4

I think you need some more information or you need to understand the information that is there.

If you think that hunters will have to "open their checkbook for a hunt" then you still do not understand the Open Spaces program. Hunters will NOT have to open their checkbook to hunt anything.

Have a good one!

Robin in Rocky

I think you need to look at the info there Duffy.

We can all see that if we want a garenteed tag we pay under hfh and those who don't just have to wait longer.

Under ramp hunters are not supposed to pay but SRD said they don't have the money to pay for the program so we are probably going to have higher licences.

If you want to argue details you better do it with the guys that can't see the writing on the wall.

and good job on the article Mr. Waugh.

[mud slug]

okay i know i'm going to take some flak on this. but i'm still on the fence. i've been talking to my hunting partners, and most of them don't see a problem. don't want to pay a farmer to hunt his land, then hunt crown land simple. someone even brought up going phesant hunting on a place like a phesant farm, are you not paying that farmer to hunt his birds on his land?and in a way how about fishing derbys? you allready have a licence so why pay to fish in a derby? if its to win a prize for catching fish isn't paying a farmer to get a prize of a big buck the same thing? i don't know. i know that i 'm not going to pay someone to hunt on their farm. so that leaves hunting crown land for free.i may be missing the point but i've been told that before.

.

[QUOTE=duffy4;113314]

In the end the reader still has to make up their mind as to weather they like open spaces or not.
[QUOTE]


Duufy, It would be nice if you could make up your mind. It is becoming really hard to figure out where your coming from.

You write the above, and then Mintaka decides to say NO to Open Spaces and the you write "I think you need some more information or you need to understand the information that is there."

Originally Posted by mud slug

okay i know i'm going to take some flak on this. but i'm still on the fence. i've been talking to my hunting partners, and most of them don't see a problem. don't want to pay a farmer to hunt his land, then hunt crown land simple. someone even brought up going phesant hunting on a place like a phesant farm, are you not paying that farmer to hunt his birds on his land?and in a way how about fishing derbys? you allready have a licence so why pay to fish in a derby? if its to win a prize for catching fish isn't paying a farmer to get a prize of a big buck the same thing? i don't know. i know that i 'm not going to pay someone to hunt on their farm. so that leaves hunting crown land for free.i may be missing the point but i've been told that before.

I don't agree with the pheasant farm hunting. I compare it to high fenced hunting.
I don't see the similarity in fishing derbies. The prize you take home is not "property" of the people of Alberta.
Just because you choose to not participate in "paid hunting" does not make it O.K. I choose to not poach, that doesn't mean it's OK for others to do it.

[mud slug]

sniper most of the people i hunt with are in their late 20 early 30 and don't seem to care about paid hunting untell it affects them.the derby statmement was made by a freind of mine that doesn't hunt or fish and couldn't see a difference in the two.thier main statement is hunt crown land and then you don't have to pay. i tend to agree with that statement

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by SNIPER

I don't agree with the pheasant farm hunting. I compare it to high fenced hunting.
I don't see the similarity in fishing derbies. The prize you take home is not "property" of the people of Alberta.
Just because you choose to not participate in "paid hunting" does not make it O.K. I choose to not poach, that doesn't mean it's OK for others to do it.

Fishing derbies are a completley different thing , for sure.
As far as comparing pheasent hunting to high fenced hunting, there are some differences also, for one, the birds do have the ability to fly away!!
I think that is the big difference.
I hunt crown land most of the time, also, but if paid hunting becomes a reality, it will only be a matter of time beofre all our land is allocated.
Even now, I have neumerous accounts from firends ( and myself) where I am told I cannot hunt by an outfitter because he has tags in that area.
I normally tell them to stow their attitude and call the Wildlife, but the line may be busy because I will already be on it!!

Cat

Originally Posted by mud slug

thier main statement is hunt crown land and then you don't have to pay. i tend to agree with that statement

In the short term, I agree with that statement. But what happens after the pilot period is over and it goes province wide? The crown land will be highly populated with guys that "don't have to pay"
You guys are quite a bit younger then me, so it will/would affect you more then me. The damage that could happen from OS is not immediate but in the future of your hunting. Probably not mine.

[Waxy]

Originally Posted by mud slug

okay i know i'm going to take some flak on this. but i'm still on the fence. i've been talking to my hunting partners, and most of them don't see a problem. don't want to pay a farmer to hunt his land, then hunt crown land simple. someone even brought up going phesant hunting on a place like a phesant farm, are you not paying that farmer to hunt his birds on his land?and in a way how about fishing derbys? you allready have a licence so why pay to fish in a derby? if its to win a prize for catching fish isn't paying a farmer to get a prize of a big buck the same thing? i don't know. i know that i 'm not going to pay someone to hunt on their farm. so that leaves hunting crown land for free.i may be missing the point but i've been told that before.

Flak Alert -At the risk of offending you or your friends - this isn't even close to being a well thought out position, this is apathy born of ignorance. Simply saying "well, it doesn't really affect me", or "there's plenty of crown land" doesn't address the issue in any way, it's a cop out. Dedicate an hour of your life to reading and understanding the info available, good and bad, and then critically assess how that will affect not only you, but all hunters, if and WHEN the pilot goes province wide. Then make an informed decision on the issue.

Unfortunately, it will be the very people that couldn't be bothered to read or understand the issue in front of them that will complain the loudest when they realize what the consequences of their apathy are.

Waxy

P.S. Comparing OS to a fishing derby is pretty ridiculous, and shows how little critical thought was put in. A fishing derby is like a football pool. You already pay your cable bill so you get the game on TV, so why put your money into the pool? Are you paying the cable provider to run the pool? You do it for fun, everyone places their bets, the money goes into the middle, and the winner of the pool takes it. Same deal for fishing derbies. They are strictly catch and release as well.

Originally Posted by 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

Just wanted to bring this to the top again. I wonder if morton listened and has a clearer picture now that AFGA has voted on the resolution?

From AFGA website


OPEN SPACES PILOT REJECTED BY ALBERTA FISH & GAME MEMBERSHIP
Posted: 2008-02-26 12:38:12




The membership of the Alberta Fish and Game Association (AFGA) unanimously rejected the controversial Open Spaces Alberta (OSA) pilot project at its annual conference held February 21-23 in Edmonton.

The OSA project proposal came about to address the issue of decreasing habitat and reduced access for hunters. Landowners bear the cost of production of wildlife (a public resource) and are frustrated by hunting pressures from the public and the associated damage to their land and improvements as a result of providing access. There is decreased opportunity to access private land, resulting in competition for hunting space, and ultimately fewer quality hunting opportunities. There is increasing pressure from landowners and hunters and anglers to improve the situation.

The Pilot Program proposes two components:
1. Recreational Access Management Program (RAMP)
2. Hunting for Habitat Program
Landowners have the option of enrolling in one of the components. Both programs will be evaluated annually to measure results of the pilot program for future consideration.

In both instances landowners would be entitled to receive monetary benefit.

In Alberta it is illegal for a landowner to charge money for access to his/her land for the purposes of hunting or fishing.

“The Fish & Game membership views the Open Spaces Project as privatization of Alberta’s wild resources, something the Association vehemently opposes. Just as we opposed the ill fated decision to allow privatization of wildlife, game farms, no good could come of it, and now our wild ungulates face huge health risks. The AFGA is not opposed to landowners being recognized for good habitat stewardship, and providing sportspeople access to their lands. We would suggest that tax incentives could be one of the tools by which this happens”, said Maurice Nadeau, AFGA President.

The Alberta Fish and Game Association is a not-for-profit volunteer organization that has been active in habitat conservation since 1908 and has a province-wide membership of 17,000 individuals keen on maintaining Alberta’s natural heritage.

Sheephunter,

Thanks for posting that. Nice to see them put a statement up on the website so quickly.

Bubba

Originally Posted by bubbasno1

Sheephunter,

Thanks for posting that. Nice to see them put a statement up on the website so quickly.

Bubba

X2 Sheephunter.

Good to see the AFGA Pres make a statement against this. Better late than never.

Originally Posted by chevy427

X2 Sheephunter.

Good to see the AFGA Pres make a statement against this. Better late than never.

That's the beauty of a member-based organization......the president doesn't speak until the membership instructs him how to....since the members just spoke to this issue on Saturday.....I'd say this statement was pretty timely.

[Duk Dog]

Thanks Sheep.

[Unregistered user]

Time for a membership drive.

[59whiskers]

It is great to see a response from the AFGA opposing the OSPP with a unanimous vote. Wildlife and public lands belong to all Albertans, not the highest bidder. This same government tried game ranching and the Metis interm agreement.