I realize this is a touchy topic, so goes easy on me. These are my opinions, if I offend someone then maybe you're just too damn sensitive.
Landowners have been able to charge for hunting access in MB for years, I can't recall it ever causing major problems. Many landowners don't allow outfitters regardless of money offered, since they don't want non residents on their land, which is their prerogative of course. I suppose a person would have to try and define what private property rights a person actually has. Sadly, in Canada, it's very little.
On the other hand, maybe it should be illegal to charge for all trespass including oil exploration/drilling on private land. After all, most landowners with newer titles have no more right to that resource than wildlife.I suspect it's those with no land of their own who are mainly opposed to this. I agree that all crown land, leased/occupied or not, should be available for all to hunt.
We have more public land available for hunting in Canada than pretty much anywhere else in the world. For that reason, our hunting system really doesn't compare to any European country.
Yes, I'm a landowner and though I wouldn't/don't necessarily charge anyone to hunt/access my land, I don't see why I should be prohibited from doing so. After all, it's my private land which I paid for. There are those that will argue the fact people are paying to hunt a resource which belongs to everyone. The fact is that since the animals are not penned up, you're actually charging for access and not any specific animal.
IMO, a bigger problem is the purchasing of agricultural land by foreign investment corporations who have a Canadian company/citizen as the official owner. That's going to cause major problems down the road, and not just for hunting. My thoughts anyhow.
I don't agree with access fees for a few reasons.
- if landowners are serious about the development of ecological goods and services, lets have a serious discussion about placing a value on good stewardship. I see some merit in methods to recognize and compensate landowners who maintain great habitat for wildlife. And I see the benefit from those practices extending beyond the hunting community. Also, there should be no contingency required like leveraged access IMHO - if you have great habitat but don't want to allow access that should be your prerogative. The pilot project run in WMU 108 was paying money to hutterite colonies on what used to be great land, but which now is farmed "pin to pin".
- Wildlife is a public resource. Any variation from this fundamental principle leads to the commercialization of wildlife. Commercialization has historically done nothing for the benefit of wildlife in general, and in many cases lead to severely reduced/extirpated populations. Look to CWD and what it is doing to indigenous populations of Deer in Alberta.
- Paid access would lead to "farming" for the most lucrative markets. If I have native range and I need to grow big racks, perhaps I plow and sow biologic horn mixes. What is to become of other species that rely on that habitat?
And for what it is worth - I am a landowner, and despite the fact some di@k poached a deer Sunday morning on my place, I don't think that this would be beneficial to hunters or hunting in Alberta.
