Atten Alberta Hunters
- Thread starter Lazy Ike
- Start date
This could very well be the beginning of the end of huntung as we know it in Alberta. Particularly the areas in Southern Alberta, where some of the best Elk hunting in the province is, it is already hard enough to get permission... it will be impossible if this goes through. If they try it out down south and it works, the whole province will be following suit shortly after.
Considering how much money hunters put into the coffers of the provincial government and support the local communities, it doesn't paint a positive picture for the future.
Ivo
Considering how much money hunters put into the coffers of the provincial government and support the local communities, it doesn't paint a positive picture for the future.
Ivo
I'm voting Liberal unless my MLA gives me reason not to.
"In return for improving public access for hunting and fishing to private lands of significant size and habitat quality (example: minimum of 12,000 contiguous acres), landowners establishing approved HFH Management Units will be allocated some big game tags. The initial harvest objective for big game species in an HFH Management Unit will be determined by SRD biologists in consultation with the landowners, and considering the area of the property, quality and capacity of the habitat, current abundance and wildlife movement patterns, impacts on neighbors, and a negotiated long term population objective for the unit. Initially, landowners may be allocated 15% of the harvestable surplus calculated for the HFH Unit, or an amount proportional to the area of the WMU enrolled in an HFH Unit. The landowner proportion of the allocation may be increased up to 50% of the allowable harvest as the population increases to the target level. The remaining tags (between 50% and 85%) are available to public hunters through a conventional draw system. The sliding scale for the land owner tag allocation provides an incentive for increasing wildlife abundance and habitat quality on private lands. HFH Management Units will be managed under a negotiated formal management plan that sets out objectives and actions for wildlife, habitat, and access management."
"In return for improving public access for hunting and fishing to private lands of significant size and habitat quality (example: minimum of 12,000 contiguous acres), landowners establishing approved HFH Management Units will be allocated some big game tags. The initial harvest objective for big game species in an HFH Management Unit will be determined by SRD biologists in consultation with the landowners, and considering the area of the property, quality and capacity of the habitat, current abundance and wildlife movement patterns, impacts on neighbors, and a negotiated long term population objective for the unit. Initially, landowners may be allocated 15% of the harvestable surplus calculated for the HFH Unit, or an amount proportional to the area of the WMU enrolled in an HFH Unit. The landowner proportion of the allocation may be increased up to 50% of the allowable harvest as the population increases to the target level. The remaining tags (between 50% and 85%) are available to public hunters through a conventional draw system. The sliding scale for the land owner tag allocation provides an incentive for increasing wildlife abundance and habitat quality on private lands. HFH Management Units will be managed under a negotiated formal management plan that sets out objectives and actions for wildlife, habitat, and access management."
Last edited:
Here is Mr. Morton's response to my letter:
Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding the Open Spaces Alberta pilot project. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.
You passionately state your opposition to Open Spaces because you fear it will undermine public hunting. If it did, I too would oppose Open Spaces.
If you think that all Open Spaces does is give tags to rich landowners to sell to the highest bidder, then you are right to be angry. I’d be angry too.
But the facts are different. Open Spaces has the potential to significantly enhance the quality of public hunting and start to rebuild the declining numbers of hunters in Alberta—the real key to protecting the future of our hunting heritage.
I know that there is a lot of partial and misleading information circulating about the Open Spaces initiative, so let me try to give you a more complete picture of what this pilot project is about.
Open Spaces Alberta is a pilot program that aims to improve and expand public hunting by providing increased access, increased habitat and increased wildlife populations. The proposed pilot project would include only two areas in southwestern Alberta (Wildlife Management Units 108 and 300) and last only five years. Stakeholder groups have been engaged in the process and will continue to be throughout the five-year trial period. A provincial-level stakeholder group has recommended a general policy framework and proposed pilot areas. Much work, including detailed management agreements, remains to be done in pilot areas by local planning groups that include hunters.
During the trial, consultants will be contracted to monitor hunter satisfaction, access to private land, existing habitat, and landowner satisfaction. At the end of five years, Fish and Wildlife Division will consult with all stakeholders to determine whether program goals have been achieved and whether the program should be expanded or terminated.
Open Spaces has two components. The Recreation Access Management Program (RAMP) will provide an access management system that connects hunters and landowners more efficiently. RAMP would compensate landowners for increasing/improving habitat on their lands and allowing public access for hunting and angling. The compensation would come from the Government, not hunters, and participation would be voluntary for landowners. The compensation would be based on a “hunter-day” schedule, and would vary depending on the size of the property and the quality of the habitat. There would be a maximum dollar cap on how much a landowner could receive for the season.
This approach recognizes that Alberta’s ranchers and farmers are our partners in wildlife stewardship, not our adversaries. While deer, elk, ducks and pheasants are and will always remain public goods, the habitat they depend upon is often managed by private landowners. On private lands, which comprise over 85 percent of southern and central Alberta, decisions about habitat management are at the discretion of the landowner. If we want that habitat to remain or be restored—whether it be sloughs, woodlots or brush-patches—and if we want public access to increase, we can’t just leave all the costs and inconvenience on the shoulders of landowners.
This cost-sharing approach is also the foundation for the second part of Open Spaces—Hunting for Habitat. This program would focus primarily on elk, but could include other species, as determined by a local planning group. It would involve voluntary cooperatives of mid- to large-size landowners in the WMU. Only privately-owned, deeded land would be eligible. Crown grazing leases remain open to public access under the current rules.
The goal is to increase public access, wildlife habitat, herd size and the number of tags available to public hunters. The current management strategy in WMUs 108 and 300 is to SUPPRESS the number of elk by focusing the public hunt on cow elk. We do this because the elk herds cost local ranchers thousands of dollars by competing with their cattle for forage, knocking down fences, and damaging crops.
Under Hunting for Habitat, the strategy would be to significantly INCREASE the size of the herd by shifting the hunt to bulls and building up the cow (reproducing) population. On Milk River Ridge, for example, this management strategy could increase the herd from its current size of one hundred elk to a thousand or more elk. Over time, this would mean hundreds of additional elk tags available through the public draw process.
Would participating landowners get some of these new tags? Yes, approximately 10-15 per cent of the total, to sell the same way that licensed outfitters now sell their allotted tags. This is how landowners would be compensated for the costs of the additional elk on their land.
But the vast majority of NEW tags—over 80 percent—would go to public hunters through the normal draw process. And public hunters would have guaranteed access to participating ranches—many of which have been posted “No Hunting, No Trespassing” for decades. It seems to me that this is a darn good trade-off for resident hunters like you and me.
There would be other benefits as well. An elk herd of this size would become a tourist attraction during the summer months. This would further strengthen the local economy, and also introduce city-dwellers to rural Alberta and environmentally-sustainable land-uses—which include hunting, as well as good range management.
During my time as Minister of Sustainable Resource Development, I have supported a number of new initiatives to improve public hunting and strengthen the tradition of hunting in Alberta. In addition to Open Spaces, these include expanding Sunday hunting; an official provincial hunting day; new opportunities for youth hunters; and MLA Len Mitzel’s bill on a Hunting Heritage Act.
Open Spaces is only one of these initiatives, but, in my mind, one of the most important. Why? Because it begins to build new bridges between the public hunting community and private landowners, between those of us who own Alberta’s wildlife and those who take care of the habitat on which our wildlife and fisheries flourish. I believe that this new spirit of cooperation will be a win for habitat, a win for wildlife, and a win for Alberta hunters and anglers.
I hope this answers some of your questions about Open Spaces. Even if I haven’t persuaded you, I hope you will keep an open mind and support the pilot projects so we can see if they work. If they don’t work, we can terminate them. If we don’t try, we’ll never know.
Sincerely,
- Ted
Honourable Ted Morton
Minister of Sustainable Resource Development
For more information about
Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding the Open Spaces Alberta pilot project. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.
You passionately state your opposition to Open Spaces because you fear it will undermine public hunting. If it did, I too would oppose Open Spaces.
If you think that all Open Spaces does is give tags to rich landowners to sell to the highest bidder, then you are right to be angry. I’d be angry too.
But the facts are different. Open Spaces has the potential to significantly enhance the quality of public hunting and start to rebuild the declining numbers of hunters in Alberta—the real key to protecting the future of our hunting heritage.
I know that there is a lot of partial and misleading information circulating about the Open Spaces initiative, so let me try to give you a more complete picture of what this pilot project is about.
Open Spaces Alberta is a pilot program that aims to improve and expand public hunting by providing increased access, increased habitat and increased wildlife populations. The proposed pilot project would include only two areas in southwestern Alberta (Wildlife Management Units 108 and 300) and last only five years. Stakeholder groups have been engaged in the process and will continue to be throughout the five-year trial period. A provincial-level stakeholder group has recommended a general policy framework and proposed pilot areas. Much work, including detailed management agreements, remains to be done in pilot areas by local planning groups that include hunters.
During the trial, consultants will be contracted to monitor hunter satisfaction, access to private land, existing habitat, and landowner satisfaction. At the end of five years, Fish and Wildlife Division will consult with all stakeholders to determine whether program goals have been achieved and whether the program should be expanded or terminated.
Open Spaces has two components. The Recreation Access Management Program (RAMP) will provide an access management system that connects hunters and landowners more efficiently. RAMP would compensate landowners for increasing/improving habitat on their lands and allowing public access for hunting and angling. The compensation would come from the Government, not hunters, and participation would be voluntary for landowners. The compensation would be based on a “hunter-day” schedule, and would vary depending on the size of the property and the quality of the habitat. There would be a maximum dollar cap on how much a landowner could receive for the season.
This approach recognizes that Alberta’s ranchers and farmers are our partners in wildlife stewardship, not our adversaries. While deer, elk, ducks and pheasants are and will always remain public goods, the habitat they depend upon is often managed by private landowners. On private lands, which comprise over 85 percent of southern and central Alberta, decisions about habitat management are at the discretion of the landowner. If we want that habitat to remain or be restored—whether it be sloughs, woodlots or brush-patches—and if we want public access to increase, we can’t just leave all the costs and inconvenience on the shoulders of landowners.
This cost-sharing approach is also the foundation for the second part of Open Spaces—Hunting for Habitat. This program would focus primarily on elk, but could include other species, as determined by a local planning group. It would involve voluntary cooperatives of mid- to large-size landowners in the WMU. Only privately-owned, deeded land would be eligible. Crown grazing leases remain open to public access under the current rules.
The goal is to increase public access, wildlife habitat, herd size and the number of tags available to public hunters. The current management strategy in WMUs 108 and 300 is to SUPPRESS the number of elk by focusing the public hunt on cow elk. We do this because the elk herds cost local ranchers thousands of dollars by competing with their cattle for forage, knocking down fences, and damaging crops.
Under Hunting for Habitat, the strategy would be to significantly INCREASE the size of the herd by shifting the hunt to bulls and building up the cow (reproducing) population. On Milk River Ridge, for example, this management strategy could increase the herd from its current size of one hundred elk to a thousand or more elk. Over time, this would mean hundreds of additional elk tags available through the public draw process.
Would participating landowners get some of these new tags? Yes, approximately 10-15 per cent of the total, to sell the same way that licensed outfitters now sell their allotted tags. This is how landowners would be compensated for the costs of the additional elk on their land.
But the vast majority of NEW tags—over 80 percent—would go to public hunters through the normal draw process. And public hunters would have guaranteed access to participating ranches—many of which have been posted “No Hunting, No Trespassing” for decades. It seems to me that this is a darn good trade-off for resident hunters like you and me.
There would be other benefits as well. An elk herd of this size would become a tourist attraction during the summer months. This would further strengthen the local economy, and also introduce city-dwellers to rural Alberta and environmentally-sustainable land-uses—which include hunting, as well as good range management.
During my time as Minister of Sustainable Resource Development, I have supported a number of new initiatives to improve public hunting and strengthen the tradition of hunting in Alberta. In addition to Open Spaces, these include expanding Sunday hunting; an official provincial hunting day; new opportunities for youth hunters; and MLA Len Mitzel’s bill on a Hunting Heritage Act.
Open Spaces is only one of these initiatives, but, in my mind, one of the most important. Why? Because it begins to build new bridges between the public hunting community and private landowners, between those of us who own Alberta’s wildlife and those who take care of the habitat on which our wildlife and fisheries flourish. I believe that this new spirit of cooperation will be a win for habitat, a win for wildlife, and a win for Alberta hunters and anglers.
I hope this answers some of your questions about Open Spaces. Even if I haven’t persuaded you, I hope you will keep an open mind and support the pilot projects so we can see if they work. If they don’t work, we can terminate them. If we don’t try, we’ll never know.
Sincerely,
- Ted
Honourable Ted Morton
Minister of Sustainable Resource Development
For more information about
Well then you haven't heard riden talking lately.
IMHO after reading the letter I'll take a wait and see attitude but will be keeping a close eye on the pilot project.
If somebody gives me hard evidence either way I'll evaluate then. Will be talking to Ty Lund to let him know my feelings on the matter.
Well then you haven't heard riden talking lately.
IMHO after reading the letter I'll take a wait and see attitude but will be keeping a close eye on the pilot project.
If somebody gives me hard evidence either way I'll evaluate then. Will be talking to Ty Lund to let him know my feelings on the matter.
You do know that Morton is pumping sunshine up your (where it's dark).
A wait and see attitude is what a lot of people, including myself, did with the registry. I don't plan on waiting to see anymore.
The someone needs to show me the black and white where it says that this will lead to outfitters monopolizing taqgs and landowner getting paid to allow them on and keep me off. So far all I've heard is conjecture and what ifs. I am for any program that opens up access to private land but for everyone not just the select few.
LOL, and he can't drive either. Well, park anyway. - dan
Well then you haven't heard riden talking lately.
IMHO after reading the letter I'll take a wait and see attitude but will be keeping a close eye on the pilot project.
If somebody gives me hard evidence either way I'll evaluate then. Will be talking to Ty Lund to let him know my feelings on the matter.
The problem with this line of thinking is that no one can provide “black and white” answers to the Open Spaces proposal. The secrecy of the process has not allowed for meaningful stakeholder input and scrutiny, regardless of what the government would have you believe.
I think it is important to look at the proposal in its entirety and to compare it against its peers. RAMP is copied from the Montana Block model and HFH is basically imitates the Utah model. While most landowners view RAMP as a bit of a toothless dog, it does little if anything to compel landowners to grant hunters access to private properties. Further, it does not mitigate any concerns of landowners getting additional payments for exclusive use of their properties. I have communicated with hunters and landowners in Montana and they (especially the hunters) are not happy. This is an expensive program with little benefits to landowners or hunters and is vulnerable to abuse. If you know some Montanans, give them a call and get their take on the program.
The HFH proposal is the real devil. Landowners will get a sizeable number of tags, out of the current allotment, and will be allowed to sell them to whoever they want (they can become outfitters) for whatever the market will bear. Remember, wildlife is a public trust owned by all residents.
Much has been made about the so-called “comparable access” clause, which would grant resident hunters access to these never before hunted private properties. There is a huge problem here; nobody (SRD) will define the components of comparable access. I was at a meeting with SRD regarding Open Spaces and they ultimately conceded that a landowner would not likely give the same unfettered access to a resident with a draw tag versus a “customer” that had just paid $10,000 or more for one of their own antlered mule or elk or moose tags. It’s just bad business. The final word was – these things (comparable access) would have to be worked out on the local level between local landowners and hunters, after Open Spaces is put in place. It is not black and white, but I think the results of comparable access become pretty obvious.
Because the HFH tags are coming out of the current allotment is should also be noted that the likelihood of being successful in a draw (especially in these two pilot WMU’s) will effectively double. Instead of successfully drawing a WMU 108 antlered mule buck tag in four to five years, you can now expect to wait eight to ten years. Of course, you always have the option of forking over some big money for an HFH tag and you can hunt every year. It sure doesn’t seem too fair to the resident hunter or Albertan. If I recall correctly, landowners in Utah get close to 85% of all tags to sell. The Open Spaces group stated that Alberta does not want to go in the same direction as Utah, yet the have the car started and pointed in that direction.
The Open Spaces proposal has nothing to do with habitat and conservation; it may have started that way, but they have pulled those qualifiers. Open Spaces is about access for hunting and compensation to landowners. Regardless of the spin, I do not see any need to call it anything other than “Paid Hunting”.
I guess as hunters in Alberta, we have to ask ourselves if access is the biggest reason in the decline of hunters and if it is the big issue to us are we comfortable with paid hunting? I know that I have rarely had problems with access. Over the years, the landowners who have allowed access continue to allow access and those that refuse access continue to refuse access. It is their private property and I respect their decisions. There remains, a lot of Crown land in Alberta but it could get much busier.
Are you comfortable paying (directly or indirectly through license and tag increases, etc.) for the opportunity to access properties for hunting or for a tag for a public trust? Are you comfortable with perhaps doubling the time it takes to get drawn for a particular animal (8 to 10 years) while others are able to go out and purchase that very same tag every year? Is this fair to Albertans, all landowners and resident hunters? The choice is yours to make... or not make.
So again, I get two sides to the scenario. The rosy and and the dark. I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle.
I would like to see landowners compensated for HABITAT restoration/retention much like the CRP program. Allowing them to sell a few tags for use on their property might be part of that.
So far it seems like one side is putting out "worst case" scenarios and the other side is all "sunshine and roses". If it's a pilot project in a limited area, why not give it a shot and see if either scenario occurs?
This seems to be saying that the landowners would only be getting the 10-15 percent of NEW tags created through the program.
I would like to see landowners compensated for HABITAT restoration/retention much like the CRP program. Allowing them to sell a few tags for use on their property might be part of that.
So far it seems like one side is putting out "worst case" scenarios and the other side is all "sunshine and roses". If it's a pilot project in a limited area, why not give it a shot and see if either scenario occurs?
.
This seems to be saying that the landowners would only be getting the 10-15 percent of NEW tags created through the program.
Last edited:
If you understand the source of these “new” tags you might or might not be surprised. I personally was dumbfounded.
The reported reason that these particular landowners wanted compensation was due to the damage and degradation caused by wildlife on their personal properties. For the most part, these landowners have never allowed resident hunters access to their properties. Evidently, and supported by SRD, the numbers of elk and (to a lesser degree) deer were causing landowners great distress. I am not a scientist or wildlife biologist, but I fail to see that the solution to what the landowners call the problem is to (obviously?) increase the problem. Unless this is just a vehicle to increase the revenue generated by paid hunting in order to supplement or replace agricultural income? Paid for (in one way or another) by our fellow Alberta hunters.
I have never thought that access was a big issue, or even a marginal issue in the reduction of Alberta hunters (BTW - that trend was reversed last year). In my experience and in my observations the biggest factors for the decline in hunting numbers have much more to do with cost, legislation (i.e. firearm registry) and the public's perception of hunters and hunting. I think Open Spaces only increases costs and legislation and does nothing to promote the positive image of hunters and landowners. In fact I think it exposes participating landowners and hunters in a very negative way... profiteers of a public resource.
I would love to see landowners compensated for habitat and conservation initiatives! I just think there needs to be equal recognition on contribution. A landowner fortunate enough to have draw animals, whitetails and/or black bear on their property is going to do FAR better than a landowner who might support habitat for, let’s say upland and migratory birds or species-at-risk. As a result of this disparity, there is an opportunity or incentive for the latter landowner to modify existing habitat to promote financial compensation under the RAMP and HFH proposals. As SRD appears to have fully conceded, this was never about conservation and habitat. I suppose that is why so many of us view Open Spaces as a Dark Proposal.
The reported reason that these particular landowners wanted compensation was due to the damage and degradation caused by wildlife on their personal properties. For the most part, these landowners have never allowed resident hunters access to their properties. Evidently, and supported by SRD, the numbers of elk and (to a lesser degree) deer were causing landowners great distress. I am not a scientist or wildlife biologist, but I fail to see that the solution to what the landowners call the problem is to (obviously?) increase the problem. Unless this is just a vehicle to increase the revenue generated by paid hunting in order to supplement or replace agricultural income? Paid for (in one way or another) by our fellow Alberta hunters.
I have never thought that access was a big issue, or even a marginal issue in the reduction of Alberta hunters (BTW - that trend was reversed last year). In my experience and in my observations the biggest factors for the decline in hunting numbers have much more to do with cost, legislation (i.e. firearm registry) and the public's perception of hunters and hunting. I think Open Spaces only increases costs and legislation and does nothing to promote the positive image of hunters and landowners. In fact I think it exposes participating landowners and hunters in a very negative way... profiteers of a public resource.
I would love to see landowners compensated for habitat and conservation initiatives! I just think there needs to be equal recognition on contribution. A landowner fortunate enough to have draw animals, whitetails and/or black bear on their property is going to do FAR better than a landowner who might support habitat for, let’s say upland and migratory birds or species-at-risk. As a result of this disparity, there is an opportunity or incentive for the latter landowner to modify existing habitat to promote financial compensation under the RAMP and HFH proposals. As SRD appears to have fully conceded, this was never about conservation and habitat. I suppose that is why so many of us view Open Spaces as a Dark Proposal.
According to Ted's form letter, the plan is to grow a larger herd of Elk to provide all these new tags? Therefore, the idea is to compensate landowners for losses due to wildlife by creating a new commodity on their property, our wildlife! I have Rancher friends(5 generations) who have 2 resident herds that total close to 1000 animals. They have always used hunters to help control the destruction these herds can cause. Why on earth would they not also qualify for this kind of assistance? They actually have an Elk problem and they actually do try to use Hunters both licsenced and non to control the pop. Whats Ted going to do for them. Grow the herd to 2000 clos the general season and give them tags to sell?
I think the obvious idea is to compensate the landowner for NOT growing as many cattle and allowing more habitat to be used by game. Instead of trying to reduce elk and deer herds in order to maximize cattle production they will now be encouraged to maximize habitat in order to increase the elk herds.
Agreed. Though difficulty of access is a big issue for newer hunters. After 6 years in Sundre I have only now built up a reliable selection of private land areas in which to hunt.
I thought that landowners would have to go in together as 20% of a WMU and then all would benefit from the sale of tags. So even if a farmer with a big slough was part of it he would still benefit even if he did not have a resident population of elk.
sjemac, at this point, with the benefit of the latest information and discussions with SRD this remains very unclear. What I have been told is that these sorts of "agreements" would have to be "fleshed out" at the local level.
I think the 20% of the WMU is a bit misleading as well. It is something to the effect of 20% of the desireable habitat in a particular WMU (I don't have the documents in front of me) so this is subject to some interpretation as well.
The distribution of compensation would have to be agreed by the participating landowners so the farmer/rancher with a big slough or few draw animals, whitetails or black bear may or may not be allowed to particpate in a meaningful way at the discretion of the other landowners.
For the same reasons, these responsible landowners who may not be eligible or allowed to particpate in HFH, are also prejudiced under the RAMP proposal. Who wants to hunt on a property that does not produce or sustain populations of big game animals? I think this shows the bias and exposes Open Spaces as anything but a habitat and conservation initiative.
Okay fair enough. Just trying to learn about this now so I can make an informed decision on my stance rather than the usual knee-jerk "no ####ing way" response I give to ideas that involve CHANGE.
Thanks for the info so far.
Thanks for the info so far.
sjemac
I think you have hit the nail on the head. There is in my view a lot of conjecture and "Knee jirk reaction" over this program. If you look at a lot of the posts you will see "its a slippery slope" and "you can bet that..." and "it will only be a matter of time till..."
It seems to me that some people do not understand the project, do not trust the gov't. and are afraid of change.
I do not understand all the details but I am willing to "wait and see". And will be very vocal in the evaluation prossess if need be.
Robin in Rocky
I think you have hit the nail on the head. There is in my view a lot of conjecture and "Knee jirk reaction" over this program. If you look at a lot of the posts you will see "its a slippery slope" and "you can bet that..." and "it will only be a matter of time till..."
It seems to me that some people do not understand the project, do not trust the gov't. and are afraid of change.
I do not understand all the details but I am willing to "wait and see". And will be very vocal in the evaluation prossess if need be.
Robin in Rocky
Yep, people said the same thing when the gov brought in the gun registry and guess what? We can be as vocal as we want, the program is still here.
Ted Morton, one of the driving forces behind this program does not appear to know what the current proposal is given his form letter. He is now apparantly saying, he does not expect to even remain minister of SRD after the election. There are no safe guards, no details on how it will actually be financed , monitored, enforced or regulated. And large stakeholder groups have simply been ignored.
Duffy if you are prepared to accept this level of professionalism from your elected officials and the programs they dream up, it is your choice. But I suspect the majority of Albertans have slightly higher expectations.
Do you have any idea as to the current framework and proposed evaluation process? Let me by very clear, if we all adopted your “wait and see” attitude, and after five years decided that this program was not good for hunting, we could yell and scream all we like but we would have NO impact on the future of Open Spaces as it would be applied to ALL of Alberta.
If you do not believe me, call SRD or Cormack Gates and find out what they are proposing for the qualifiers and participants in the evaluation process.
And if you still do not believe me, call AFGA, ACA, HFT and APOS and ask how their input shaped the proposal you have in front of you today.
sjemac, This is not the way it will work. The 10-15 percent of tags come out of the current resident tag allotement. The actual numbers I believe were posted earlier in this thread.
Also having sat in the meeting in Calgary I believe this has nothing to do with habitat. The suggestion was put to the group that something could be worked out to compensate the landowners based on habitat retention or expansion, something like the ALUS program, the landowners shot this down immediately.
Bubba
Last edited:
