Interesting thoughts on RAMP

[sheephunter]

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

My bad, I thought the public meant hunters too. Interestingly though, I don't think there was much landowner consultation either. I talked with several landowners that seemed quite involved in the beginning that didn't even know the payment calculation had been changed until late July 2009. They didn't seem overly happy about the lack of consultation either. One of those was likely the most vocal landowner in WMU300.

 

[sheephunter]

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.

Pretty much symantics. It may or may not be paid hunting. The danger with getting too wrapped up in the wording is that the Wildlife Act can be changed to allow paid hunting. I'm comfortable with not calling it paid hunting and just calling it paid access. It doesn't make it any more palatable but I'm not sure it's worth spending a lot of time arguing over either. Ted is a master at deflecting and this is one of those things he keeps deflecting to. So I say okay, it's not paid hunting, let's talk about the issues surrounding RAMP

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.

I can see a connection. Much of Alberta's wildlife calls private agricultural land home so I guess looking at methods to ensure habitat retention is not that big of a stretch.

.....

 

[Tempest]

You say semantics I say the reason the Wildlife Act was adopted in the first place to avoid this.

When asked;

Do you see, like, some possible future troubles with companies buying up land rights and, say, offering these tourists hunting here in the region? Will the government continue to play a role in monitoring that? Do you encourage that to happen?

…if the habitat has been improved and if there is equal public access, then it’s a bit beside the point who is running it.
Ted


Once the government downloads this to the private sector things I’m sure will just run smooth as silk. I can see a parallel organization like APOS in charge of themselves.

The second point of creating new revenue streams is ridiculous if it is taxpayer’s money. When you buy land and decide to make a living off of agriculture the wildlife that exists there it is part of the deal. No where on the deed does it say the government will pay you for the game that is on it that is one of the costs of doing business. If you want to reduce that cost allow hunting.

You are an interesting case you state “let’s talk about the issues surrounding RAMP” are these not the issues surrounding RAMP complete erosion of the Wildlife Act at the whim of a minister that would rather take the word of a rambling bitter landowner in 300 that thinks the world owes him something rather than the entire AFGA.

This is the BS that Morton thinks is fact:

From said bitter landowner in 300

Hunter knocking on door at 6:OOam wakes my family up. He wants access to hunt. I take his name, and direct him to the pasture where there are no cattle but plenty of deer.

During breakfast, two trucks of hunters drive in wanting access; I give out more directions.

I take the tractor to the hay field to rebuild fence that 30 head of elk we fed all summer tore down during the first day of hunting season.

Later I find truck tracks in the long, dry grass. I follow the tracks to where the driver stopped and threw out beer cans and garbage. At least they didn't start a fire in the tinder-dry grass.

Many road hunters driving around just after legal shooting light, there's a shot in the hayfield, go to check and see tail lights leaving and gate left open for our horses to get out. They loaded the deer fast and tore up the grass. This hunter never intended to ask for access.

In the evening I answer telephone calls from hunters until 10:30 p.m.

Sounds like a saint doesn't he.

This is supposedly just one day.

Please I knew a landowner that lived just a few miles down the road from this individual that would tell a completely different story but Morton never asked him his opinion. Plus this is the same landowner that broke many laws by demanding payment for access many times in the past.

These are some of the issues of RAMP.

Can you list some more?

 

[sheephunter]

The second point of creating new revenue streams is ridiculous if it is taxpayer’s money. When you buy land and decide to make a living off of agriculture the wildlife that exists there it is part of the deal. No where on the deed does it say the government will pay you for the game that is on it that is one of the costs of doing business. If you want to reduce that cost allow hunting.

I think you missed the point. If you want to reduce the cost, you reduce the habitat. The game is not always a cost of doing business...it's a cost that can be easily eliminated. I'm still all for working with private landholders to retain habitat. That habitat is typically worth far more as agricultural land. Give private landholders a reason to retain and even enhance a percentage of it. I never suggested that the government pay for the game on the land nor has anyone else that I know of. Retaining habitat is most definitely not part of the deal when you buy land.....

You are an interesting case you state “let’s talk about the issues surrounding RAMP” are these not the issues surrounding RAMP complete erosion of the Wildlife Act at the whim of a minister that would rather take the word of a rambling bitter landowner in 300 that thinks the world owes him something rather than the entire AFGA.

I don't necessarily see any further errosion of the Wildlife Act but I do see a program we can't afford and I do see the future of hunting access in this province in real jeopardy whether RAMP works or not. That's some of the issues I see.

I just don't see the point of giving him an arguement about whether it's paid hunting or not. That debate could rage forever detracting from issues that can't be refuted. Ultimately, who cares. The Wildlife Act has been ammended to accommodate RAMP. What's done is done. Ask the hard questions that there's no arguing about.

 

[Lazy Ike]

I think you missed the point. If you want to reduce the cost, you reduce the habitat. The game is not always a cost of doing business...it's a cost that can be easily eliminated.

I know some 5th generation ranchers that say differently.

I just don't see the point of giving him an arguement about whether it's paid hunting or not. That debate could rage forever detracting from issues that can't be refuted.

You and Ted can't refute the fact that Ted has already tried to create a paid hunting system in ALberta. You and Ted can't refute that he was willing to actually change the Wildlife act to accomodate his sceme. Arguing what he is saying and ignoring what he has said, is detracting from an issue that cannot be refuted; Ted Morton is supports paid hunting.

Ultimately, who cares. The Wildlife Act has been ammended to accommodate RAMP. What's done is done. Ask the hard questions that there's no arguing about.

This does not sound like the attitude of a man who is prepared to tackle this issue? Why would you promote a strategy that requires that people accept the ammended Wildlife ACT? This is legal foundation that allows the program(RAMP) to exist in the first place?

 

[sheephunter]

I know some 5th generation ranchers that say differently.

And I know lots that say it's so....so what?

You and Ted can't refute the fact that Ted has already tried to create a paid hunting system in ALberta. You and Ted can't refute that he was willing to actually change the Wildlife act to accomodate his sceme. Arguing what he is saying and ignoring what he has said, is detracting from an issue that cannot be refuted; Ted Morton is supports paid hunting.

Now that is humurous. Me and Ted refute that huh? Your level of comprehension never fails to amaze me Ike. Of course HFH was a form of paid hunting but the debate could rage on forever whether RAMP is or not and I'd rather use my time more constructively. So what if it is or isn't paid hunting....I don't need that definition to to see the problems with RAMP. Why side track things? Even if Ted agrees that it is paid hunting, again, so what. RAMP is here, it's happening. Okay we have paid hunting...what did that solve?

This does not sound like the attitude of a man who is prepared to tackle this issue? Why would you promote a strategy that requires that people accept the ammended Wildlife ACT? This is legal foundation that allows the program(RAMP) to exist in the first place?

For the simple reason that it's been done. This is not something he's thinking about doing, it's done. Cry over spilled milk if you like but do you really think anyone is going to go back to the act and take out that ammendment because some hunters say it's paid hunting and Ted says it's not. Come on Ike, use your head. There are problems with RAMP that all people can see, even non hunters. Why get bogged down in the symantics of paid hunting and RAMP. The wildlife Act gets changed and ammended every year.

Just a thought Ike...maybe quit trying to put words in my mouth and attributing actions to me and we can have a civil discussion aboout RAMP and hopefully come to some solutions on how to fight it? Just a thought anyhow. I know it won't be as much fun for you but it may be more productive....if you really are concerned about getting rid of RAMP that is.

 

[norskie]

I think you missed the point. If you want to reduce the cost, you reduce the habitat. The game is not always a cost of doing business...it's a cost that can be easily eliminated. I'm still all for working with private landholders to retain habitat. That habitat is typically worth far more as agricultural land. Give private landholders a reason to retain and even enhance a percentage of it. I never suggested that the government pay for the game on the land nor has anyone else that I know of. Retaining habitat is most definitely not part of the deal when you buy land.....

I think the economic drivers that have taken native range and converted it to cropping systems have largely taken place. There is a bit more that could take place given the recent pressures with bio-fuel production demands here and in the US, but lets be realistic. This conversion is likely to take place in the areas linked to irrigation, where margins can be reached via specialty crops and these are in localized pockets not within the pilot project's scope.

The areas in question (wmu 108 & 300) contain large land holding ranches and areas that likely would be less susceptible to the wholesale conversion to agriculture. They do graze cattle, so you could argue that the quality of the grazing could be impacted, but the habitat is already maintained. I am of the opinion that retention of habitat is somewhat of a misnomer. Several farming cycles have pretty much converted most of the "economic" habitat at this point anyway (how else would you have hutterites eligible for RAMP payments).

In wmu 300 there are grazing leases that are well utilized to graze cattle in the forest reserve west of where some of the most outspoken proponents of paid hunting ranch. This heavily grazed range might well provide grazing for a substantial amount of Elk, but seeing as it has been grazed heavily they move beyond it to graze on private land for winter range. It would seem rational to most that if these landowners are so upset as to demand payment for feeding elk on his place, that maybe there should be an immediate moratorium of all public grazing allotments to ranchers in these hot button areas. We could run a 3 year pilot without grazing to determine if the Elk would use this public grazing land over private grass.

 

[Lazy Ike]

And I know lots that say it's so....so what?

I guess your point is irrelevant then?

Now that is humurous. Me and Ted refute that huh? Your level of comprehension never fails to amaze me Ike. Of course HFH was a form of paid hunting but the debate could rage on forever whether RAMP is or not and I'd rather use my time more constructively. So what if it is or isn't paid hunting....I don't need that definition to to see the problems with RAMP. Why side track things? Even if Ted agrees that it is paid hunting, again, so what. RAMP is here, it's happening. Okay we have paid hunting...what did that solve?

Just a wild guess but the issue for many of us is that we do not want a system that promotes Paid hunting. That might be why people keep hammering away at this.

For the simple reason that it's been done. This is not something he's thinking about doing, it's done. Cry over spilled milk if you like but do you really think anyone is going to go back to the act and take out that ammendment because some hunters say it's paid hunting and Ted says it's not. Come on Ike, use your head. There are problems with RAMP that all people can see, even non hunters. Why get bogged down in the symantics of paid hunting and RAMP. The wildlife Act gets changed and ammended every year.

So we should give up trying to change the wildlife act but it gets changed every year? Honestly if it gets changed every year, why wouldn't we focus on removing the foundation of this program rather than compromise?

Just a thought Ike...maybe quit trying to put words in my mouth and attributing actions to me and we can have a civil discussion aboout RAMP and hopefully come to some solutions on how to fight it? Just a thought anyhow. I know it won't be as much fun for you but it may be more productive....if you really are concerned about getting rid of RAMP that is.

Agreed! I will proceed with the philosophy that in order to get rid of this program we should include in our focus, the fact that in order for this program to cease to exist we need to eliminate the ammedments in the Wildlife Act that permit it. Take it out by the roots so to speak.

Granted, my approach does not include (what appears to me) an element of compromise. That is to say, proceeding with the attitude that we have to accept that the Wildlife Act actually permits this "slick system".

It would be akin(I suppose) to the notion that we are going to get rid of The Registry by accepting that Bill C-68 exists and there is no point in trying to change this fact.

 

[sheephunter]

I think the economic drivers that have taken native range and converted it to cropping systems have largely taken place. There is a bit more that could take place given the recent pressures with bio-fuel production demands here and in the US, but lets be realistic. This conversion is likely to take place in the areas linked to irrigation, where margins can be reached via specialty crops and these are in localized pockets not within the pilot project's scope.

The areas in question (wmu 108 & 300) contain large land holding ranches and areas that likely would be less susceptible to the wholesale conversion to agriculture. They do graze cattle, so you could argue that the quality of the grazing could be impacted, but the habitat is already maintained. I am of the opinion that retention of habitat is somewhat of a misnomer. Several farming cycles have pretty much converted most of the "economic" habitat at this point anyway (how else would you have hutterites eligible for RAMP payments).

In wmu 300 there are grazing leases that are well utilized to graze cattle in the forest reserve west of where some of the most outspoken proponents of paid hunting ranch. This heavily grazed range might well provide grazing for a substantial amount of Elk, but seeing as it has been grazed heavily they move beyond it to graze on private land for winter range. It would seem rational to most that if these landowners are so upset as to demand payment for feeding elk on his place, that maybe there should be an immediate moratorium of all public grazing allotments to ranchers in these hot button areas. We could run a 3 year pilot without grazing to determine if the Elk would use this public grazing land over private grass.

Alberta is a big province. Drive up to Peace River and tell me there is no wholesale conversion. I just came back from there....and the destruction is unbelieveable. While RAMP may be a pilot in 108 and 300, it is destined for all of Alberta. Just because something isn't happening in your backyard doesn't mean it's not happening. The world is bigger than your backyard norskie!

 

[sheephunter]

I guess your point is irrelevant then?





Just a wild guess but the issue for many of us is that we do not want a system that promotes Paid hunting. That might be why people keep hammering away at this.





So we should give up trying to change the wildlife act but it gets changed every year? Honestly if it gets changed every year, why wouldn't we focus on removing the foundation of this program rather than compromise?



Agreed! I will proceed with the philosophy that in order to get rid of this program we should include in our focus, the fact that in order for this program to cease to exist we need to eliminate the ammedments in the Wildlife Act that permit it. Take it out by the roots so to speak.

Granted, my approach does not include (what appears to me) an element of compromise. That is to say, proceeding with the attitude that we have to accept that the Wildlife Act actually permits this "slick system".

It would be akin(I suppose) to the notion that we are going to get rid of The Registry by accepting that Bill C-68 exists and there is no point in trying to change this fact.

A wise friend who is a very savvy corporate negotiator once told me to never go to the table with more than one question or you'll have a fool made of you. Go with one question and don't leave until until you get an answer and you'll look like a genius. Is your one question, "Is this paid hunting?"

My one question is, "How will we pay for this?"

Some sage advice to consider.

 

[norskie]

Alberta is a big province. Drive up to Peace River and tell me there is no wholesale conversion. I just came back from there....and the destruction is unbelieveable. While RAMP may be a pilot in 108 and 300, it is destined for all of Alberta. Just because something isn't happening in your backyard doesn't mean it's not happening. The world is bigger than your backyard norskie!

I apologize for not being clear to all, but this is in reference to the zones that are effected by the pilot, and in reference to where Mr. Morton suggested we had the problem (white zone - southern part of the province). If we want to fight Mr. Morton on the RAMP program that is staring us in the face there is no sense in muddying the water with what might be, but rather attack the specific issue that is before us - RAMP exists in 108 and 300. It is in these zones right now, where the data will be compiled to suggest whether this has merit or not - to move beyond it's current scope as you suggest. To look beyond where the specific program exists and theorize what might happen would open yourself to subsequent dialogue on just what conversion might do in those locales. Conversion of land doesn't always result in lower carrying capacities for game animals, and locales of conversion might have a direct correlation to the "availability" of hunting opportunities.....
and we end up chasing our tails yet again (I recall hearing this before?).

Your myopia might have you believing that many of us have a lack of understanding of how this issue might effect our entire province - but rest assured we might surprise you with a reasonable understanding of the issues facing land conversion at a local, Provincial, National and even global level.....

It all really boils down to one thing. If you wish market pressures to decide the fate of our publicly owned wildlife resource, the current government is prepared to accommodate. If you believe that we have a responsibility to look after our wildlife resources and not leave that management system to greed, then it is time to get busy.

Paid hunting is the war we fight, and RAMP is a battle in the war. Arming yourself with as much specific knowledge about how we ended up here, and what is transpiring specifically within this pilot is likely the key to winning this battle. Winning this battle is paramount in our success to defeat paid hunting in Alberta. IMHO

 

[sheephunter]

Norskie, I think you misunderstand the whole point of RAMP. Yes it is a pilot in a select area of the province but its success or failure there will affect the entire province. I appreciate the fact that it's in your backyard right now but it's desitined to be in all Albertan's backyards. There is a wholesale habitat conversion going on in this province right now and just because it's not in your backyard doesn't make it any less important. One of the big arguements for RAMP is to prevent this exact type of habitat conversion. I don't think it's the right approach but I'd be naive to say that habitat conversion is not going on in Alberta. One of the things that came out of the LUF loud and clear was that we need to find a means to reward landowners that retain and enhance habitat on private property. Since the LUF is becoming the framework for land management in the province, why not listen to what the Alberta people said was important to them and offer some more palatable ways to achieve it, rather than telling the Alberta people they don't know what they are talking about. Morton is using what came out of the LUF to push RAMP through. Why not offer an alternative or at least open the door for an alternative not tied to hunting access rather than saying it's not an issue because it is.

You keep going back to our publically owned resource. Sorry to say but habitat is privately owned on private property. This has nothing to do with private ownership of wildlife and everything to do with ensuring that the publically owned wildlife has a place to live on private land. There's little arguement that HFH crossed the private/public ownership line of wildlife but it's easy to argue that RAMP doesn't. Ramp is a habitat/access based program. The publically owned wildlife is a byproduct of that habitat.

 

[norskie]

Norskie, I think you misunderstand the whole point of RAMP. Yes it is a pilot in a select area of the province but its success or failure there will affect the entire province. I appreciate the fact that it's in your backyard right now but it's desitined to be in all Albertan's backyards. There is a wholesale habitat conversion going on in this province right now and just because it's not in your backyard doesn't make it any less important. One of the big arguements for RAMP is to prevent this exact type of habitat conversion. I don't think it's the right approach but I'd be naive to say that habitat conversion is not going on in Alberta.

I don't believe I misunderstand anything about RAMP or the implications of such a system Sheephunter - and I haven't misunderstood any components of the Minister's desire to commercialize wildlife from the moment I found out about it - which was December of 2007. Can you say that you have had unfaltering opposition to paid hunting (no matter the iteration - as RAMP was a component of Open Spaces) since then? And please don't hand us the recycled response "that I was gathering the facts".


There is habitat conversion going on in this Province. I did not suggest that there isn't. To claim that all conversion is bad would be naive at best - some conversion may actually lead to enhanced wildlife carrying capacity opportunities in the areas you mention. Despite the fact that I do have specific knowledge about land use and habitat conversion in the Province, I would never be so pretentious to believe that I might understand the dynamics involved in "wholesale conversion" and the impacts on carrying capacity for wildlife. The government likely has little to no expertise on that specific issue within the deflated SRD portfolio. The model that everyone seems to be hanging their hat on for land use change is ALCES, to which there are some areas that might be open to debate as well.

If the government know this conversion in the Peace area is so bad, why do they not try to mitigate it, rather than throw cash at an area that was the first to be developed decades ago? Each portion of our great Province has it's own specific regional issues that might preclude us logically using any one specific WMU as a reasonable measuring stick for implementation to other WMU's. I don't think logic really is a big consideration for Morton.

This brings us back to the idea of fighting the pilot - RAMP, in it's current iteration where it is happening at this time. Your mentioning wholesale land use change from the adoption of RAMP Province wide is an important consideration to rember when we engage in the war against paid hunting. Let's concentrate on winning the battle - defeating the RAMP pilot as it exists now.

 

[norskie]

One of the things that came out of the LUF loud and clear was that we need to find a means to reward landowners that retain and enhance habitat on private property. Since the LUF is becoming the framework for land management in the province, why not listen to what the Alberta people said was important to them and offer some more palatable ways to achieve it, rather than telling the Alberta people they don't know what they are talking about. Morton is using what came out of the LUF to push RAMP through. Why not offer an alternative or at least open the door for an alternative not tied to hunting access rather than saying it's not an issue because it is.

It was pretty easy for Morton to derive the "mandate" he needed through the LUF surveys - he engineered it to suggest the direction he wanted. I know I took the survey - four choices of basically the same answer type stuff..

Where have you been for the last three years? We have always suggested habitat retention and creation should be rewarded - to the Minister himself - but it has been made clear that new ideas were not really welcome. Tax incentives, and other payments linked to retention/creation and not linked to access would do more for habitat. Why should a landowner who is a great steward and had great habitat not be rewarded because he doesn't allow hunters? Maybe this has little to do with habitat and everything to do with economic development........

 

[Lazy Ike]

A wise friend who is a very savvy corporate negotiator once told me to never go to the table with more than one question or you'll have a fool made of you. Go with one question and don't leave until until you get an answer and you'll look like a genius. Is your one question, "Is this paid hunting?"

My one question is, "How will we pay for this?"

Some sage advice to consider.

And I wise friend told me: "A man with only one ball will never learn to juggle".

Reducing this entire issue to your one question is a recipe for failure.

"How will we pay for this?"

What if they say; "Lotto money."

Your question has been answered. Taxpayers and hunters are not out of pocket.

RAMP proceeds and the door remains open.

Hardly the result a man opposed to RAMP would desire.

 

[sheephunter]

Where it's happening right now really doesn't matter squat. It's a a pilot to assess the feasibility of taking the program province wide. If it was a pilot to assess its feasibility in WMU108 and 300 I'd totally agree with you but it's not. You need to look at the province wide ramifications because that's within the scope of the pilot. Morton has used the finding of the LUF working groups to further RAMP and while those findings may not apply on a broadscale basis to 108 and 300, they do to the province of Alberta. Saying it doesn't exist is a slap in the face to those on the working groups, many of whom were indeed very qualified to reach the conclusions about habitat retention that they did. As hunters, the special interest group that is supposedly benefiting from RAMP, we need to speak up and say that RAMP is not the means of acheiving the finding of the experts on the LUF working groups. We need to say there has to be better ways.

ALCES is nothing more than computer software....it's a tool for evaluating the potential ramifications of various landuses. I'm not sure anyone is hanging their hat on it. It's just a tool in a suite of tools.

 

[norskie]

You keep going back to our publically owned resource. Sorry to say but habitat is privately owned on private property. This has nothing to do with private ownership of wildlife and everything to do with ensuring that the publically owned wildlife has a place to live on private land. There's little arguement that HFH crossed the private/public ownership line of wildlife but it's easy to argue that RAMP doesn't. Ramp is a habitat/access based program. The publically owned wildlife is a byproduct of that habitat.

Wildlife is our publicly owned resource.
Sometimes our resource lives and or occupies private land.
If you wish to enhance opportunities for enhanced habitat for our wildlife, then let's talk about that.

What has changed with any parcel of land enrolled in the RAMP program from prior to it's activation? Nothing. There were no less cattle grazed, there are no pieces of native land saved from the clutches of the plow. Participants have not entered into any agreements to modify their existing cropping/grazing systems to facilitate any additional habitat gains from what was present before the pilot was introduced. How can you argue that this program has any significant implications other than to reward landowners for allowing recreational access?

 

[sheephunter]

And I wise friend told me: "A man with only one ball will never learn to juggle".

Reducing this entire issue to your one question is a recipe for failure.

"How will we pay for this?"

What if they say; "Lotto money."

Your question has been answered. Taxpayers and hunters are not out of pocket.

RAMP proceeds and the door remains open.

Hardly the result a man opposed to RAMP would desire.

Right now I'd be happy with one answer. I think we have a lot more chance of pushing for one than three. I'm not sure I want to ask Ted to learn to juggle. I'd be happy if he'd concentrate on one ball at a time right now....something he seems to have difficulty doing. Funny, people have posted a lot of answers they've received from Morton on here where they've asked multiple questions and he's always managed to totally deflect to the one that really has no answer. The man is a brilliant politician. Funny I've yet to see him answer the question about where the money will come from. I wonder why that is.

 

[Lazy Ike]

Right now I'd be happy with one answer. I think we have a lot more chance of pushing for one than three. I'm not sure I want to ask Ted to learn to juggle. I'd be happy if he'd concentrate on one ball at a time right now....something he seems to have difficulty doing. Funny, people have posted a lot of answers they've received from Morton on here where they've asked multiple questions and he's always managed to totally deflect to the one that really has no answer. The man is a brilliant politician. Funny I've yet to see him answer the question about where the money will come from. I wonder why that is.

So would you be content if this was a lotto funded program? I'm sure there are a number of ways to fund what you call "a slick sytem" without hitting up the taxpayer.

Again if this is your primary concern it hardly dovetails with those who want the program scrapped.

 

[sheephunter]

What has changed with any parcel of land enrolled in the RAMP program from prior to it's activation? Nothing. There were no less cattle grazed, there are no pieces of native land saved from the clutches of the plow. Participants have not entered into any agreements to modify their existing cropping/grazing systems to facilitate any additional habitat gains from what was present before the pilot was introduced. How can you argue that this program has any significant implications other than to reward landowners for allowing recreational access?

Personally I can't argue that and have no interest in doing it but at the end of three years when there is no net loss of habitat on the RAMP lands and other areas of the province have seen thousands of acres destroyed, it would be pretty easy to say look, RAMP worked. No net habitat loss is something that can't be claimed in many other areas of the province. The fact that there has been no change will be deemed the ultimate success I'm sure. Yippee, RAMP retained 100% habitat.

I'm just saying..........................

Wildlife is our publicly owned resource.
Sometimes our resource lives and or occupies private land.
If you wish to enhance opportunities for enhanced habitat for our wildlife, then let's talk about that.

UMMMM...isn't that what I've been saying and isn't that what the LUF working groups have been saying? And isn't Morton claiming that's whayt RAMP is supposed to acheive?