- Location
- AB foothills
Interesting thoughts on RAMP
- Thread starter sheephunter
- Start date
- Status
That's because the whole issue IS about money, so of course Morton doesn't want to talk about the money.
Every year at the AFGA conference, there is a metric ####load of consensus that MORE ENFORCEMENT is a major priority of outdoors stakeholders in Alberta.
But new budget money for this MUST be more important.
Agenda much?
Every year at the AFGA conference, there is a metric ####load of consensus that MORE ENFORCEMENT is a major priority of outdoors stakeholders in Alberta.
But new budget money for this MUST be more important.
Agenda much?
I would love to know what really is the agenda behind RAMP. I participated in a few meetings and several gatherings with individuals representing the University of Calgary and SRD and I was told different reasons for the Open Spaces Proposal each time.
In chronological order:
(1) Paid hunting already exists in Alberta (aimed at Alberta's outfitters) and it is time to get it above the table.
(2) Hunting numbers have been steadily declining since the early '80's and access has been identified as the reason. Paid access and hunting will open up large tracts of land that have never before allowed hunting. Cormack Gates and SRD were asked to provide the data to suggest that access was the big issue in the decline of hunting numbers. They could provide no data nor evidence. As of today, most if not all of the landowners participating in the RAMP program allowed hunting and free access for hunting.
(3) The stewards of the land need to be recognized and rewarded for their conservation and management of good habitat. I don't think anyone has a problem with this objective, but the government has chosen only a few landowners and still tied the consideration to hunting access. You can put lipstick on the pig, but it is still a pig.
These are three separate reasons I have been told in support of the evolution of RAMP and paid access for hunting. There may be more, but who knows for sure?
I think I read that the budget for Fish & Wildlife officers has been cut by 20%. It sure seems strange that the taxpayer is paying landowers for access that was free in previous years and choosing to abandon frontline conservation, management and enforcement.
It's important to remember that the University of Calgary and SRD tried this once before a few years back with many of the same players under the Cypress Hills Elk Management Plan (CHEMP) and were unsuccessful. I think the only thing that has changed is that Minister Morton is at the wheel doing what he sees fit and he is not listening to hunters, landowners, biologists and conservationists. I'm not sure why. My observations anyway.
Paid hunting DOES exist in Alberta, just not legally.
I believe that the agenda boils down to paving the way for large-tract landowners in the prime elk and mule deer country along the foothills to auction off exclusive access to the highest bidder, or even to form hunt clubs where access is paid for via membership in a co-operative of some kind.
But that's just me.
I believe that the agenda boils down to paving the way for large-tract landowners in the prime elk and mule deer country along the foothills to auction off exclusive access to the highest bidder, or even to form hunt clubs where access is paid for via membership in a co-operative of some kind.
But that's just me.
Alot of hunters simply don't understand that Ranchers typically consider Elk to be gigantic pests. They cost money. Turning them into a revenue stream is very appealling .
I'm not talking about most working ranchers. I'm thinking of a couple of dozen, mega-wealthy families who own some monster ranches between High River and the US border. The kind of wealthy that gets the ear of politicians.
I may be way out to lunch.
I may be way out to lunch.
Wealth and votes.
That area has the first Mormon temple built outside the US. Ted Morton "creates" 2 programs, taylor made for large corporate ranches, that closely resemble an existing program out of Utah in an election year when Paul Hinman (WRA) held the seat in that constituency.
Ted shows up at a Broyce Jacobs(PC candidate) fundraiser and basically tells the ranchers he's going to give them Open Spaces and RAMP.
(Former LDS Bishop)Broyce Jacobs gets elected.
The bad news is that the WRA was and is courting Morton. From a few converstaions with my local WRA chapter, lets just say they know nothing about RAMP and if it's part of Ted's luggage when he jumps ship, they won't mind.
Drove by several propertires on Friday and only saw one truck with bird hunters. Saw lots of mule deer but decided to hunt elsewhere. I kinda thought the properties would be busier on the first week of deer hunting. Been hearing the same from others.
We were hunting in 108 on Friday and Saturday and checked out some of the RAMP sites. Same thing... we only saw one other truck at a sign-in box. I was wondering how busy they would be, but from what we saw, not very.
I had not heard this.
I believe I'll have a conversation with Danielle Smith letting her know how popular Morton is with the outdoors stakeholders in Alberta.
I'd prefer if he were a pariah, as I'm not happy with anything Morton has done.
Also, it's well known that he has eyes for the PC leadership and want's to be Premier.
He's trying to tow the party line right now . Bottom line is, Ted wants to run Alberta. How he acheives this is probably not a big concern to him.
I should add that some of Ted's biggest supporters in the PC have already thrown their support behind Danielle Smith.
It certainly puts an interesting spin on things from an evalution perspective.
As hunters, we usually defend our actions by stating "as long as it is legal you are good to go!". The Alberta government has made paid access legal.
Ethics are personal and another matter entirely.
It would appear that many of Alberta's hunters ethics preclude them from participating in RAMP. I wonder how Cormack Gates and the University of Calgary will qualify or quantify those that refuse to participate in RAMP in their overall evaluation of the project?
I fear that the sign-in cards may conveniently be the sole source for evaluation.
It seems to fly in the face of the most recent response from the Alberta Fish and Game Association.
I think part of it is that not many hunters are actually aware of RAMP and these properties will likely get busier in the coming years. Considering the program came together too late to be included in the hunting regs, it's not hard to conceive that people are unaware of it. Not everyone visits messageboards which seem to be have been the sole source of info.
If one were to assume that the purpose of RAMP is to pave the way for private paid hunting-which is exclusive and caters to very few hunters. It would be safe to assume that the majority of Alberta hunters are not even a consideration.
Another thing to note, is that not all hunters are welcome at the online forums where this information is made available, particularly those that have been a stong voice in opposing RAMP, and OSA before that. The major AB based forum where this topic was first brought to the attention of AB outdoorsmen, and where most of the information on it was/is made available, is controlled (censored) by a VERY small minority who choose to look after their own interests ahead of those of the hunting community in general.
Waxy
Waxy
Last edited:
Ya, I can't see any other way either but if this goes province-wide, that fee could cost each Alberta hunter $200-$400 per year. It scares me that the only answer that the Government can offer up about how this will be paid for is that they hope it becomes self-funding.
Anyone that believes this thing will be objectively evaluated by Gates and the U of C probably believes in the tooth fairy as well.
Let us not forget Cormack's role in Open Spaces, and his previous attempts to commercialize wildlife in the Cypress Hills area.
- Status
