Got home from work and found this in my in-box.
http://www.lethbridgeherald.com/content/view/30516/71/
http://www.lethbridgeherald.com/content/view/30516/71/
Get out yer wallets ALbertans. Paid hunting is here.
- Thread starter Lazy Ike
- Start date
- Status
We either are paying as Hunters or Tax payers.
Personally I don't have an issue with landowners being compensated for preserving habitat but the original RAMP/OS proposal was crooked from the get go. You might recall that it included, giving the landowners tags, that they could sell to the highest bidder.
No I didn't follow any of that, I'm going to have to google to do some reading thanks for the info.
As for paying for it check out vehicle insurance in someplace like Manning or Peace River if you get more then pl/pd your already paying for the higher deer polulations.
Land owners getting tags just because they allow people on their land I don't agree with and I am a landowner.
As for paying for it check out vehicle insurance in someplace like Manning or Peace River if you get more then pl/pd your already paying for the higher deer polulations.
Land owners getting tags just because they allow people on their land I don't agree with and I am a landowner.
Haven't seen any details yet but it will be interesting to see what he has done to address the concerns about a habitat component being included in RAMP. That seemed the major stumbling block for getting support for RAMP originally. The newspaper article seems to indicate that it is once again a component but who knows and to what degree. I guess the proof will be in the details. It will be interesting to see how he intends to fund this as well. If this is ever to go province-wide, the costs would seem astronomical. I guess the answers will once again be in the details.
Last edited:
Too much awesome crown land here i have never wasted my time with landowners.
Ayup!
When I was living in SK, I was never turned down by a landowner unless they had already given someone else permission that day.
Since I moved here to AB, I have not been bothered with dealing with Private owned land. There's too many options for places to go otherwise, to feel the need.
Cheers
Trev
There's a meeting coming up. When the date is set I will attend. However, and I must confess it seems I don't fully understand this situation, I don't think it will be that bad. Let me explain. From how I see it's worded, certain private landowners (The amount will be limited) will be compinsated for allowing pretty much unconditional access to or over their land. Now I could be wrong, but if your allowed to access their land at 5:00 in the Morning without having to bother anyone, that sounds alright to me. My biggest concern with hunting private property is I like to arrive damn early and I never like to bother anyone that early in the day. I usually visit a week or two in advance and put a phone call out the night before just to be sure there's no problems. However I feel the phone call is impersonal and damages the relations you have with an otherwise face to face conversation. If this program allows someone to access at any time (reasonable hours of course) so much the better.
I also see another golden lining here. Many hunters, especially new guys are always on the look out for new land to hunt. I also find too many of them affraid of personal contact with farmers. They would rather hunt on public ground just so they don't have to face rejection. As we have more hunters join our sport, this will give them someplace new to go and take the pressure off other areas that we may call our little honey holes. But again that's only my understanding and I will attend these meetings if they are close enough to here.
I also see another golden lining here. Many hunters, especially new guys are always on the look out for new land to hunt. I also find too many of them affraid of personal contact with farmers. They would rather hunt on public ground just so they don't have to face rejection. As we have more hunters join our sport, this will give them someplace new to go and take the pressure off other areas that we may call our little honey holes. But again that's only my understanding and I will attend these meetings if they are close enough to here.
It appears to be the usual suspects putting this forward.
The problem is, that they already tried to piggy-back their own agenda on the important issues of, habitat preservation and access-to a lesser degree.
I'm not sure who you are speaking about but even groups like the Alberta Resident Hunters for Justice have said that they could support RAMP with a habitat component. It will be interesting to see how comprehensive the habitat component is in this new version of RAMP and if he can sway groups like that. Sadly, there seems to be a lot of details lacking at this point. Hopefully more become available soon so we know what it is that we are actually dealing with.
There's no real surprise here. The Minister said RAMP was going to happen in the 2008 hunting regulations. I just thought we'd know a few more details by now.
Last edited:
This isn't actually correct, they have not made any such public statement to the best of my knowledge.
I couldn't agree more sheephunter, we need the details, I don't understand the lack of information available on a program that was supposedly ready for launch in 2008. Even more than that, we need open consulation on the process with those that will be directly affected, including the AFGA, which voted unanimously last year in opposition to the OSA proposal, of which RAMP is a part.
However, a flawed program with more details is still a flawed progam. Kinda like knowing the details of your death, that's all well and good, but you're still dead.
Waxy
From the ARHJ....
"RAMP – built on the Montana Block Management Program. As was written in one of our ‘black documents’ it is not completely offensive. The Montana system seems to be reasonable in many respects. With a fully public consultative process and a reasonable timeframe for development we can see how a RAMP-like program could work in Alberta. At this time the process and precedent prevents us from supporting RAMP in its current form (not linked to habitat retention or creation) as part of OS."
As for the lack of info available, I don't understand it either. You'd think they'd have learned from round one. Hopefully we'll know more next week.
Can I ask for a source on that quote sheephunter?
It does say RAMP-like though, and I'm not sure that could or should be interpreted as support, or potential support, for RAMP. I think they've made their position fairly clear regarding any program based on payment for access.
As for the lack of info, it's almost as though rather than learning from their mistakes the first time and having an open consultation, they've taken it even more underground and gone out of their way to avoid any leaks to the public until it's official - and too late for opposition.
Waxy
Came directly from ARHJ in a position paper....I interpret it as they could support a RAMP like process with a habitat component....it looks as though this version may have just that and be modeled much closer to Block.....which the ARHJ says is reasonable in many aspects.....just the way I read it anyhow.
I gotta ask why the focus on ARHJ with them being quoted?
I thought that the AFGA, ABA, Pheasants forever, all came out publicly against the OS initiative? I am sure I missed a group or two as well. Don't forget about nearly every resident that was made aware of the initiative was against it as well, at least every one that I spoke to.
I realize that only one component of the OS initiative is proceeding, but to say that one group was quoted supporting something that has not been unveiled with none of the facts being made public seems to be a stretch to me?
I thought that the AFGA, ABA, Pheasants forever, all came out publicly against the OS initiative? I am sure I missed a group or two as well. Don't forget about nearly every resident that was made aware of the initiative was against it as well, at least every one that I spoke to.
I realize that only one component of the OS initiative is proceeding, but to say that one group was quoted supporting something that has not been unveiled with none of the facts being made public seems to be a stretch to me?
The "usual suspects" are Berger and Morton
So do I.
The way the orignal OS/Ramp attempt was handled speaks volumes about the architects of the proposal.
They obviously wanted to create a specific area in Alberta where; landowners could sell tags, where-if Ted's mad ramblings were to be believed- herds of Elk could be transplanted onto Ranches so that the owners sell tags and where landowners would be compensated for preserving habitat.
Berger never seems to know anything about the paid hunting issue, although when I e-mailed him prior to the election he told me he was going to "look into it" if he got elected.
Where did you get it? Do you have a link or copy of the enitre paper? Is there more to it than that paragraph alone?
I think the ARHJ has made their position quite clear, in spite of this one vague quote from an unknown source.
At any rate, I agree with Lazy Ike, why the focus on ARHJ, and what they "might" support? It would seem to me that there are much larger and more influential organizations that have come out strongly against RAMP, the AFGA for one.
Just seems odd to me that's all...
Waxy
An entire paragraph from an ARHJ issued position paper is hardly a vague quote but I can send you the entire position paper if you like. I do have it on my computer as a Word file. Send me your e-mail addy. As I said earlier, it was issued by the ARHJ.
Yes, I too am glad that larger and more credible organizations spoke up despite the ARHJ's attempts to discredit them.
Last edited:
- Status
