Interesting thoughts on RAMP

[sheephunter]

I actually went back through my old files as it just didn't seem to me that Morton used the word "shelved" at the AFGA conference and I don't think he did. I think it was uttered in a press release or at another meeting prior to the AFGA convention. I found reference to it in the comment by Andy Weiss on February 12, 2009 when he said,

"The landowner tags were a part of the original initiative, albiet this second part of the program has been shelved. I certainly hope you can still call me a fear monger 2 years from now.

BTW, I would be more comfortable with everything if the language used for HFH was cancelled and not shelved.

I do agree with the posters stating that this was announced in the 2008 regulations, so it should be of no surprise.

Have a good day. "

This was almost 10 days before the AFGA Conference. I remember listening very closely to Morton at the conference and he did not use the word shelved but assured everyone that it was gone forever. There's no doubt he originally used the word shelved prior to the conference but he did not use those words at conference. I also checked my notes and there in not reference to the word shelved being used there and I know I was listening intently for it as his earlier use of it came under suspicion. At least that's what I can offer from someone that was there taking careful notes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[sheephunter]

I actually found some more info and apparently the "shelved" comment can be traced all the way back to a Lethbridge meeting in August of 2008. It was definitely not the word he used at the AFGA conference.....I knew something didn't seem right.

Here's another quote from Andy in September 2008..

"Morton said what he said about the HFH portion being shelved- this is a fact. I am sure I speak for others that when someone comes on here and says that they have reliable info contrary to what was said from the horses mouth (Morton) it is kinda like a kick in the nuts. So many did so much to get this thing killed, All outsiders that fought their way in. Obviously the insiders are talking and making decisions, but keeping the public out of the decision making process once again (if this can be substantiated) So much of this BS was brought public from leaks that it just stinks.

Thanks for the heads up. "

 

[norskie]

FWIW

"Shelved" was mentioned by AFGA hunting chair Doug Butler in the Nov/Dec issue of the Outdoor Edge, page 34.

“We’re going to back off on that,” was the statement made at the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties convention in Edmonton, Edmonton Journal March 19, 2008


Definitely not "scrapped" as I see it...

 

[norskie]

I guess by the previous posts we would have to revert to Ike's post - there is no doubt as to Mr Morton's intention to commercialize wildlife.

That is how many of us have approached this issue to this point, and I think the evidence would suggest anyone willing to dig might find a similar conclusion. It is important to keep that "focus" in the back of your mind as we begin the battle on RAMP.

 

[Moon]

HFH was "shelved" - Ted Morton's words not mine. I would believe that to be quite different than emphatically removing it from the table.

Generating awareness on how we ended up with RAMP is not deflecting focus. It might be considered gathering information. I know any insight on how we got here is and has been important as we have fought this through the stages leading to RAMP.

As I have stated before - we need to move towards a concentrated effort to oppose RAMP.
I think we know the vast majority of Sportsmen are against this thing - what are some solutions/ideas on fighting it?

Rob Miskosky, in an article that appeared in The Alberta Outdoorsmen Magazine last year, reported that the Open Spaces Alberta Proposal was DEAD.

I know that a lot of hunters were overjoyed by this revelation and most actually believed that both RAMP and HFH were never going to be seen again. As a result of Miskosky's statement, a lot of sportsmen believed the paid hunting/access issues were done.

In a note to Mr. Miskosky, I suggested that his wording was incorrect and that a correction might be in order, specifically pointing out (as an example) that many participating members of his forum truly believe the issue to be "DEAD" when in fact, Minister Morton has never stated such a thing... publicly anyway.

I no longer have the article available so I am not certain where Mr. Miskosky obtained his information or choice of words.

Here we are today.

 

[sheephunter]

FWIW

"Shelved" was mentioned by AFGA hunting chair Doug Butler in the Nov/Dec issue of the Outdoor Edge, page 34.

“We’re going to back off on that,” was the statement made at the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties convention in Edmonton, Edmonton Journal March 19, 2008


Definitely not "scrapped" as I see it...

As I say, I listened very intently and never heard that word used there. I knew it was a very contenscious word and I'm sure I would have noticed but I guess there's a possibility I missed it but it's not in my notes. I have no doubt he said it earlier but I think he was very careful not to say it at the conference. My notes do reflect that he indicated it was gone forever. Not that a politician hasn't gone back on his word in the past but that's what he said in February.

 

[sheephunter]

Rob Miskosky, in an article that appeared in The Alberta Outdoorsmen Magazine last year, reported that the Open Spaces Alberta Proposal was DEAD.

I know that a lot of hunters were overjoyed by this revelation and most actually believed that both RAMP and HFH were never going to be seen again. As a result of Miskosky's statement, a lot of sportsmen believed the paid hunting/access issues were done.

In a note to Mr. Miskosky, I suggested that his wording was incorrect and that a correction might be in order, specifically pointing out (as an example) that many participating members of his forum truly believe the issue to be "DEAD" when in fact, Minister Morton has never stated such a thing... publicly anyway.

I no longer have the article available so I am not certain where Mr. Miskosky obtained his information or choice of words.

Here we are today.

LOL...you have to love a selective memory.....I have the article in front of me and he said, "That was until SRD minister Ted Morton announced at the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties convention in Edmonton that at least half of the OSA iniative was dead."

He went on further to say, "While the Recreational Access Management Program (RAMP) part of OSA is still alive, the dreaded Hunting for Habitat(HFH) portion appears to be in the past.

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story Moon....lmao

 

[LongDraw]

Morton said it was "dropped" in a discussion with Kent Hehr.

Kent Hehr makes a reference to "Shelved" in the same discussion.

I am sure the definition of "dropped" is up for interpretation...

Someone with the time to comb through transcript may find other discussions involving RAMP and HFH.

http://www.assembly.ab.ca/ISYS/LADDAR_files%5Cdocs%5Ccommittees%5Cre%5Clegislature_27%5Csession_2%5C20090427_1200_01_re.pdf

 

[sheephunter]

Morton said it was "dropped" in a discussion with Kent Hehr.

Kent Hehr makes a reference to "Shelved" in the same discussion.

http://http://www.assembly.ab.ca/ISYS/LADDAR_files%5Cdocs%5Ccommittees%5Cre%5Clegislature_27%5Csession_2%5C20090427_1200_01_re.pdf

Thanks LD!

 

[norskie]

LOL...you have to love a selective memory.....I have the article in front of me and he said, "That was until SRD minister Ted Morton announced at the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties convention in Edmonton that at least half of the OSA iniative was dead."

He went on further to say, "While the Recreational Access Management Program (RAMP) part of OSA is still alive, the dreaded Hunting for Habitat(HFH) portion appears to be in the past.

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story Moon....lmao

You've just illustrated the problem with language selection. There may have been many who believed the program dead due to the choice of words.That may not have been the intention of what the writer meant, but taken in context it becomes fuel to an apathetic approach.

Morton never said it was, although he would have gained some respect if he had. Ambiguous language leaves the door open. Once again this may be why many are distrustful of Morton for his lack of a clear and concise statement.

I can't wait until we get a new minister, because this "breath of fresh air" is nothing more than a wolf in sheep's clothing. Due to the good work of some diligent folks they uncovered his true agenda that he was floating under the auspices of a "concerned woodsman".

 

[Moon]

LOL...you have to love a selective memory.....I have the article in front of me and he said, "That was until SRD minister Ted Morton announced at the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties convention in Edmonton that at least half of the OSA iniative was dead."

He went on further to say, "While the Recreational Access Management Program (RAMP) part of OSA is still alive, the dreaded Hunting for Habitat(HFH) portion appears to be in the past.

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story Moon....lmao

My apologies to Mr. Miskosky and the readers. I made a mistake when I typed "the Open Spaces Alberta Proposal was DEAD". In fact, Mr. Miskosky used that word to describe the fate of the HFH proposal.

I believe the rest of my post is an accurate description and observation of the subsequent events.

Thanks to sheephunter for pointing that out.

 

[Silverado]

Good. It's nice to have it writing somewhere, just in case.



My but we're arrogant aren't we. Thanks for the lesson.

The Minister's speech was in direct response to very important motions being presented at the conference, and if "minutes", or notes, or whatever is that you want to call them were not taken on his response to such a critical issue, then shame on the AFGA.

I'm pretty sure that this example of "totally heresay" as you so eloquently put it, would be enough to convict in any court. We don't need someone to write "fire" on a cue card in a crowded theatre to be convicted, only to be directly witnessed by enough people that will swear to that person saying it in a court of law. I believe it's called eye witness testimony, and it's pretty solid as far as I know...

Waxy

Unless my recollection of that conference is incorrect, I believe at least one member club, and possibly the AFGA directly, records the whole ball of wax on video.

 

[Silverado]

We can all agree, that regardless of what Ted is saying "on the record", as our SRD minister he has clearly shown that he is intellectually pre-disposed to the concept of paid hunting. As is evidenced in the original OS/Ramp proposal.

I think the black heart of the issue is that the Minister is ethically pre-disposed to the concept.

 

[Moon]

A letter received from Minister Morton some time after the AFGA conference. I think this clears up a lot of the speculation (Bold is my emphasis):
__________________________________________________

Thank you for your April 1, 2008 e-mail regarding the Open Spaces Alberta Pilot Project. I appreciate the opportunity to respond to you.

I have heard and appreciate the concerns you and others have raised regarding the Open Spaces Pilot Program, particularly the Hunting for Habitat component. There was a widespread perception that the “self-funding” aspect of Hunting for Habitat, despite the benefits associated with it, violates the policy regarding paid hunting in Alberta. As a result, I have proposed to put the Hunting for Habitat pilot on hold until there is greater consensus on an acceptable funding mechanism. Because there is some merit in a habitat program that is self-funded, I have asked the department to look at other options and to pursue broader public consultation on this issue.

These concerns were not raised about the Recreational Access Management Program (RAMP) component of Open Spaces, since it is funded by the government. Pending further consultation with local residents, I have proposed to move forward with RAMP as a trial in Wildlife Management Units 108 and 300.

Despite all the controversy, the public debate over Open Spaces revealed a broad consensus on the need to conserve and protect wildlife habitat. We all recognize that without adequate habitat, our wildlife populations decline. Since two-thirds of central and southern Alberta are privately owned, this means providing greater incentives to private land owners to act as stewards of this habitat. Wildlife is an important public good enjoyed by all Albertans, so the costs of protecting this public good—like other public goods—should not be left solely on the shoulders—and pocketbooks—of private landowners.

I remain optimistic that we will find new ways to strike partnerships that benefit all stakeholders, hunters, non-hunters, landowners, and of course our fish and wildlife.

Thank you for your interest in maintaining wildlife as a public trust. I look forward to your future input as we proceed down this path.


Ted Morton

Minister

 

[sheephunter]

That definitely reads as though it could arise in the future. Hopefully his more definitive statement as to the future of HFH at the 2009 AFGA conference can be taken at face value and HFH is gone forever.

 

[Pudelpointer]

These concerns were not raised about the Recreational Access Management Program (RAMP) component of Open Spaces, since it is funded by the government. Pending further consultation with local residents, I have proposed to move forward with RAMP as a trial in Wildlife Management Units 108 and 300.

Talk about having your blinders on, or being delusional, or outright lying. RAMP = Paid Access, it just is not coming out of the hunters pocket (for the moment).
God damned politicians!

 

[sheephunter]

Talk about having your blinders on, or being delusional, or outright lying. RAMP = Paid Access, it just is not coming out of the hunters pocket (for the moment).
God damned politicians!

Guessing he forgot the further consultation part too. LOL

I think the fact that the "A" in RAMP stands for access and the landowner is being paid, it's not a big leap to call it paid access for sure. It's just not direct user pay.....yet. I can't see the Alberta people being happy about their tax dollars being used to pay landowners to let hunters kill Bambi.

 

[stubblejumper]

It's just not direct user pay.....yet.

The key word being "yet".

I can't see the Alberta people being happy about their tax dollars being used to pay landowners to let hunters kill Bambi.

Unless they think that it is an issue that will effect their chances of being re-elected,since when does the government care what tax payers do or don't like?

 

[Tempest]

Does anyone believe this statement:

So the incentives for landowners to keep habitat, woodlots, caragana rows, other types of cover, that are the basis of good riparian areas, watersheds, and also cover and food for waterfowl, upland birds, deer, and elk, are all negative.

Does anyone see a problem with this statement:

In this case the compensation paid to landowners comes from the government of Alberta, so there’s absolutely no so called paid hunting where an individual pays a landowner directly to get preferred access or exclusive access to hunt on private land.

Should SRD be responsible for this type of thinking:

But I think it can also be viewed as a form of an agricultural program which would allow landowners, farmers or ranchers, to diversify their business plans, create a new stream of revenue if the program goes forward.

The big finale, a question followed by the answer:

Q: The cost is stimated at $500,000 and comes from the general budget of SRD.
In the past two years the Alberta Fish and Game Association, 19,000 members, has rejected the idea. In 2008 it was also rejected by the AAMD and C and municipal governments. Anyway, on this note, Gordon wants to know: why is the government proceeding when the people proposed to be served don’t want it and there are serious concerns regarding CWD, chronic wasting disease, in the deer and elk, and grizzly bear population concerns, and other matters more pressing in need of action are being set aside?

A: The fish and game associations of Alberta are an important constituency for wildlife issues such as this, and we listen to them carefully and take their advice seriously. However, I can say with many years of experience that the people that participate in fish and game associations have typically hunted and fished all their lives. They know all the landowners they need to know. They have all their connections, and of course they say that there’s no problem with access whatsoever. For them, there isn’t, but for new hunters or people who don’t come from a hunting background – and there are lots of new Albertans coming to this province every year who don’t have those networks and contacts – access is an issue. Here is a program where the participating lands will be on a website available to the public and which offers new hunters, people who don’t have those contacts, the opportunity to get out and enjoy some of the best recreation that Alberta has to offer. Particularly, since I’ve become the Minister of SRD, I value the advice and recommendations of the fish and game associations even more, but on this particular issue I think their perspective is not representative of the entire hunting and fishing community.

Statements and Answer supplied by Ted Morton

 

[norskie]

Guessing he forgot the further consultation part too. LOL

I think the fact that the "A" in RAMP stands for access and the landowner is being paid, it's not a big leap to call it paid access for sure. It's just not direct user pay.....yet. I can't see the Alberta people being happy about their tax dollars being used to pay landowners to let hunters kill Bambi.

Oh no - he had further consultation, just that he chose to only consult with some of the specific landowners that were helping drive this....