RAMP - What does everyone think?

[norskie]

I toally agree. I hunt a ranch west of where I live and me and two other guys have exclusive access. The rancher figures we kill enough deer and elk to satisfy him and he knows us well so he doesn't have to worry about anything. But, offer him some money through RAMP and I'm sure he'd sign up, taking away my semi exclusive acess and opening access to all. Not good for me but I guess overall it would be considered more net access despite the fact access was permitted prior. That's the thing about statistics...they can be interpreted in many ways. I guess the baseline data that was collected when landowners signed up for RAMP should offer some clues as to what type of net gain there was...if at all.

If you and a couple other guy have exclusive access - this rancher likely has little problem with wildlife damage and or he is not impacted significantly in his pocketbook. He might not be interested at all.

I know guys that have this type of exclusive access you speak of (I wish I was one of them) and these land owners are not interested in giving up the control that these types of programs take away.

I know we in the south opposed to RAMP have been accused of wanting to save our "honey holes" on the ridge - and to put it in perspective this would be like calling the Bow river a secret fishing spot. The spots we are talking about are not "exclusive' or secret. Many of them had signs that said "foot access permitted" prior to RAMP.

 

[norskie]

I guess another way to look at this might be, did any of the landowners currently allowing unlimited access under RAMP ever deny acess to anyone that sought permission before? That I know for certain is a "yes". I'm guessing that will be part of the evaluation process considering the questions asked in the landowner application. Not hard to see how the government can make a case for increased access. I'm just saying........

I don't know every participant in the program.

The places that I hunted prior to RAMP all allowed access prior.

The government can make any conclusions they wish, especially with the group they have contracted to evaluate it.

 

[Omega]

Do you have an MD office where you could pick up a land map?

Do you have a telephone?

If you answer yes to both of those questions you have the same tools that I used to get access there (in 108) - so I don't buy your argument there - but you have illustrated one of the things that I fear, most guys might not know how or are not inclined to approach getting access by actually doing some legwork..

I say too bad for the ones that know better and lets give the correct skills to the new hunters.

My MD office is a dozen hours north of 108. Yes RAMP has increased access for out of the area hunters.
Around here I have all the maps and a book full of permission, but I can't do that for 108 from here. Even calling on the cell phone from the person's land doesn't work well. I've had many say no when they saw the 780 area code.
I'm just saying that while you may figure there is no extra access the gov't is going to have reams of new numbers proving RAMP's success and it will be worse next year.

 

[sheephunter]

If you and a couple other guy have exclusive access - this rancher likely has little problem with wildlife damage and or he is not impacted significantly in his pocketbook. He might not be interested at all.

I know guys that have this type of exclusive access you speak of (I wish I was one of them) and these land owners are not interested in giving up the control that these types of programs take away.

I know we in the south opposed to RAMP have been accused of wanting to save our "honey holes" on the ridge - and to put it in perspective this would be like calling the Bow river a secret fishing spot. The spots we are talking about are not "exclusive' or secret. Many of them had signs that said "foot access permitted" prior to RAMP.

Actually I do know for fact he would sign up with RAMP as I've had several conversations with him about it but as you point out, many likely wouldn't. It was nice to see at least one landowner in WMU108 still allowing general foot access that wasn't signed up in RAMP and lots that still just wanted a telephone call. The ones that surprise me under RAMP are that ones that require contact before access. I'm sure they'll get tired of the phone calls, especially considering they must allow access.

 

[sheephunter]

The places that I hunted prior to RAMP all allowed access prior.

That could very well be, I don't know them all but I do know of one for certain that would say no if there were already hunters on the property....now he can't. I'm not trying to make a case here other than to point out that as Omega said, there are many ways to evaluate a net gain in access. Yours is definitely one of them but I'm not certain it's the one the government will use.

 

[norskie]

My MD office is a dozen hours north of 108. Yes RAMP has increased access for out of the area hunters.
Around here I have all the maps and a book full of permission, but I can't do that for 108 from here. Even calling on the cell phone from the person's land doesn't work well. I've had many say no when they saw the 780 area code.
I'm just saying that while you may figure there is no extra access the gov't is going to have reams of new numbers proving RAMP's success and it will be worse next year.

My MD office has maps for most of the MD's south of Red Deer. The funny part is they have the contact information to other MD map offices. many of the MD maps are actually free online (Warner is not - I just checked) and the one's that are not still have contacts on how to get one shipped to you.

I will not agree that RAMP has increased opportunities for out of area hunters. This area has historically been flooded with "northerner's" and you would not believe the amount of BC plates. It has made it easier for some of them - easier access is not increased access IMHO.

I don't believe there is any more access - but I do understand what you are trying to suggest, that the government could try to use people who are utilizing the RAMP land as a data set that suggests an increase in access.

 

[norskie]

That could very well be, I don't know them all but I do know of one for certain that would say no if there were already hunters on the property....now he can't. I'm not trying to make a case here other than to point out that as Omega said, there are many ways to evaluate a net gain in access. Yours is definitely one of them but I'm not certain it's the one the government will use.

I actually prefer that type of system Sheep - it increases the safety and quality of the hunt for everyone. I have been turned away for the same reasons (in another zone - and i have no issue finding other dirt to hunt)

You should have seen the #### show at the OK colony on opening morning - 20 trucks at the sign in box. If yo know their land it would be tough to spread that many guys out to get any sort of hunt in that would be enjoyable or safe.

And I am dead sure the government will not look to my idea as how to evaluate - you have to look to the objective of the program to hypothesize how they may evaluate...

 

[sheephunter]

And I am dead sure the government will not look to my idea as how to evaluate - you have to look to the objective of the program to hypothesize how they may evaluate...

Pretty much what I try to do.

 

[Omega]

My MD office has maps for most of the MD's south of Red Deer. The funny part is they have the contact information to other MD map offices. many of the MD maps are actually free online (Warner is not - I just checked) and the one's that are not still have contacts on how to get one shipped to you.

I will not agree that RAMP has increased opportunities for out of area hunters. This area has historically been flooded with "northerner's" and you would not believe the amount of BC plates. It has made it easier for some of them - easier access is not increased access IMHO.

I don't believe there is any more access - but I do understand what you are trying to suggest, that the government could try to use people who are utilizing the RAMP land as a data set that suggests an increase in access.

Reddeer is 6 hours south of here and my MD office doesn't have the neighboring MD's map.
Whether we agree on the definition of net access numbers makes no difference to the big picture, neither you nor I will be making that decision. I'm just saying...

 

[guido]

So, in reality, which the gov't won't consider, nobody (reading this thread) has gotten access that they couldn't have got if the pilot wasn't in play. I'm just saying... (whatever that means)

 

[sheephunter]

So, in reality, which the gov't won't consider, nobody (reading this thread) has gotten access that they couldn't have got if the pilot wasn't in play. I'm just saying... (whatever that means)

If Norskie's comments about knowing every landowner and their access policies are true (and I'm sure they are although he has been confused before) there has been increased access on properties where access was limited by number of hunters before. Now it's not, so undoubtedly some people have gained access that wouldn't have had before. As Norskie pointed out, it may not be everyon's prefereable type of access but it is additional and to some people new nonetheless.

I'd be interested in hearing pharoah's thoughts as he actually hunted some RAMP property. It's comments from guys like him that the Government will be evaluating on.

 

[Demonical]

Shouldn't your lap dog be chiming in here some time...

 

[norskie]

Reddeer is 6 hours south of here and my MD office doesn't have the neighboring MD's map.
Whether we agree on the definition of net access numbers makes no difference to the big picture, neither you nor I will be making that decision. I'm just saying...

I don't believe in "net" access - you would need solid numbers to benchmark on which is something the government does not have. I am not sure that would preclude them from trying.

You are correct in your observation about what you or I thinking not mattering in the decision - If 19,000 hunters (AFGA) aren't heard opposing this I don't think the government will give a crap about what we think.

 

[MadDog]

Keep this civil this time.

I see another mod shut down the last RAMP thread when you guys got at it again. I won't hesitate in doing again here.

No pointing fingers either.

I really don't give a rats ass who's buddies with who on another site, I know who the #### disturbers are here and they'll be getting Graybearded the same way they did the others on the other site if it keeps up.

Have fun.

 

[sheephunter]

I don't believe in "net" access - you would need solid numbers to benchmark on which is something the government does not have. I am not sure that would preclude them from trying.

You are correct in your observation about what you or I thinking not mattering in the decision - If 19,000 hunters (AFGA) aren't heard opposing this I don't think the government will give a crap about what we think.

The government should actually have some fairly accurate baseline numbers considering the questions asked on the landowner application. I have no doubt they'll use that data to assess "net" gain. How they'll interpret those numbers, however, well that's the beauty of statistics......they can certainly spin them a number of ways. Hopefully that data set will be available to the public.

As for the AFGA, Morton has made it loud and clear that he feels they don't represent average hunters in the province........quite sad actually. He does have an answer for everything.

 

[norskie]

If Norskie's comments about knowing every landowner and their access policies are true (and I'm sure they are although he has been confused before) there has been increased access on properties where access was limited by number of hunters before. Now it's not, so undoubtedly some people have gained access that wouldn't have had before. As Norskie pointed out, it may not be everyon's prefereable type of access but it is additional and to some people new nonetheless.

I'd be interested in hearing pharoah's thoughts as he actually hunted some RAMP property. It's comments from guys like him that the Government will be evaluating on.

I am not sure where I claimed to know every landowner and there access policies.....but feel free to quote me out of context.

Also the properties in 108 that I accessed, I was granted a permission which lasted the season - I specifically asked if they wanted me to call each time & they said "nope, your good for the whole season"

Maybe we should ask the taxpaying public if they mind paying for access for hunters that are uneducated on the process of soliciting access, or those too lazy to follow due diligence in securing access?

The one thing that I keep hearing from folks is "are there other solutions" - and I truly believe we as hunters need to look in the mirror and step it up and take some frickin responsibility for our actions - like learn common courtesy and decency right from the initial phone cal etc. If you want access and you are not a horses ass - you will find lots of ground to hunt if you put the work in. Let's show we are above having the government subsidize our pastime with paid access.

 

[norskie]

The government should actually have some fairly accurate baseline numbers considering the questions asked on the landowner application. I have no doubt they'll use that data to assess "net" gain. How they'll interpret those numbers, however, well that's the beauty of statistics......they can certainly spin them a number of ways. Hopefully that data set will be available to the public.

As for the AFGA, Morton has made it loud and clear that he feels they don't represent average hunters in the province........quite sad actually. He does have an answer for everything.

How can you get accurate baseline numbers on a landowner application on a place that says "foot access permitted"? I'm just using that as an example where an educated guess is the best they can do in a lot of instances.

I am not worried about the data that they have or collect - if it is anything like the stuff they toted as support for Open spaces it is likely all very refutable.

The problem lies with the group collecting, compiling, disseminating and evaluating the data. They have proven that they are far from unbiased, and likely have a very good idea as to how they wish the results to appear right now. This coupled with a process that is far from open, with a promise of "it will be evaluated" with essentially no details or accountability tacked on the end and we have the cluster we are faced with.

 

[guido]

The one thing that I keep hearing from folks is "are there other solutions" - and I truly believe we as hunters need to look in the mirror and step it up and take some frickin responsibility for our actions - like learn common courtesy and decency right from the initial phone cal etc. If you want access and you are not a horses ass - you will find lots of ground to hunt if you put the work in. Let's show we are above having the government subsidize our pastime with paid access.

I agree "bubba".
Last wednesday i took my son and his friend out for deer.(His very first hunting trip). We went to our usual spot and the young guy missed. darn. We then headed to some property that I hunted a few years back. We stopped at the house to ask for permission and he said "no" I have had to many problems with a-holes shooting and leaving deer or shooting to close to the house. i told him I didn't blame him for making his no hunting decision and added that slob hunters make it bad for the rest of us. i explained that I had a new hunter with me and was teaching him the proper ways and said thanks and turned to leave. He stopped me and said if you walk you can go hunting. but you and the boys are the only ones allowed, I don't need to ask for the rest of the season, he said I'll recognize your truck. i know the boys felt good about it, and I am sure the landowner thought better of some of the hunters in the area. So to make a long story longer, common courtesy and not being a horses ass do get you places.

 

[sheephunter]

How can you get accurate baseline numbers on a landowner application on a place that says "foot access permitted"? I'm just using that as an example where an educated guess is the best they can do in a lot of instances.

I am not worried about the data that they have or collect - if it is anything like the stuff they toted as support for Open spaces it is likely all very refutable.

The problem lies with the group collecting, compiling, disseminating and evaluating the data. They have proven that they are far from unbiased, and likely have a very good idea as to how they wish the results to appear right now. This coupled with a process that is far from open, with a promise of "it will be evaluated" with essentially no details or accountability tacked on the end and we have the cluster we are faced with.

I'm sure there is lots missing from the data but there may be some very valuable info in it too. All I'm saying is I'd like to see it. It could be very useful. They have it, so why not ask to look at it?

 

[norskie]

I agree "bubba".
Last wednesday i took my son and his friend out for deer.(His very first hunting trip). We went to our usual spot and the young guy missed. darn. We then headed to some property that I hunted a few years back. We stopped at the house to ask for permission and he said "no" I have had to many problems with a-holes shooting and leaving deer or shooting to close to the house. i told him I didn't blame him for making his no hunting decision and added that slob hunters make it bad for the rest of us. i explained that I had a new hunter with me and was teaching him the proper ways and said thanks and turned to leave. He stopped me and said if you walk you can go hunting. but you and the boys are the only ones allowed, I don't need to ask for the rest of the season, he said I'll recognize your truck. i know the boys felt good about it, and I am sure the landowner thought better of some of the hunters in the area. So to make a long story longer, common courtesy and not being a horses ass do get you places.

Good on you for teaching the kids a valuable lesson (asking permission)- even those who have had a bad experience are still moved by a young hunters desire. The best way to top that off is for the boys to take him a Thank-You card at the end of the season. You don't know how many times that will pay you back...
Have you ever noticed women that hunt never seem to have trouble getting areas to hunt?