Question for Landowners and Hunters about Conservation

[umchorn2]

Scenario: You are a landowner of a piece of land or lands that total 160 acres or larger that currently has productive wildlife habitat. It may be for waterfowl, deer, the occasional elk, bear or grouse or some other species commonly hunted in Canada. You may or may not currently be an agricultural producer and you may or may not be using the land to generate income/make a living.

Landowners Question: What would it take to keep you from draining all the sloughs/marshes, bulldozing or clearcutting the bush/forest and plowing all the earth and turning your land into a canola field or a cow pasture or subdividing it for cottage lots? Basically what would you want in return for keeping the land in its natural state for wildlife rather than another use?

Hunters Question: If you could offer a landowner compensation that would effectively stop a landowner from turning a wildlife haven into a wildlife wasteland what would it be? Basically what would you give or offer to make sure your favorite parcel or hunting land stayed that way?

If you answered "As a landowner" include your reasoning behind your response. If you answer "As a hunter" in your response state your reason for why you responded how you did.

 

[shawn]

There are really one option no matter who it is. And it is

Provide or receive compensation equal to or more than the revenue that land is currently or may produce

Shawn

 

[freezer filler]

That was a really short thread

 

[skhunter]

As a landowner I would leave it for hunting if I could charge hunters a fee to hunt. It is currently illegal to do so.

 

[powdergun]

Too many factors to consider. At the end of the day it is based on the priorities of the owner. Positive thing is there are landowners who value keeping the land in its wild state more than the short term monetary gain of butchering it up. In the near future I may be faced with making that very decision. I have weighed all the pros and cons and have concluded that it is more important for the future of my family to preserve the land. We will actually be taking land out of production and seeding it back to wild grasses and putting in trees as we can afford.

We make enough to pay our bills and live modestly. Shiny trucks and vacations have no value to me but having our own little slice of nature is. I feel your frustration because I have seen too much beautiful land destroyed for a few extra bushels of crop or parcelled out so yuppies can pretend they live in the country. Nothing says country living like a 3500 square foot house every quarter mile.

 

[verminaard]

As the landowner, the only thing which would make me consider doing any of those things is severe financial distress.

As the hunter, there probably isn't much I could offer. If I was in a position to offer compensation of that degree I would already be the landowner.

 

[spooksar]

I have a quarter section I bought it to hunt on and will not do anything that won't improve habitat

 

[Trimmer 905]

It greatly depends on which province. In Ontario,ordinary individual landowners as described are heavily regulated by the Ministry of Agriculture,Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry and the Ontario Municipal Board as to how their rural/agricultural property is zoned and managed.

 

[Longwalker]

I am a farmer, and hunter, and own several quarter sections of land that i own simply because I can afford to and because they are good wildlife habitat. I'd have to be broke before I would ever convert that land to agricultural production. And probably not then either. I'd sell it to another like minded individual or to a habitat conservation organization.

 

[Dogleg]

As a hunter there isnt much you can do except lease it if a quarter was enough to interest you. Thats illegal in my province, which is pretty stupid. Practically anything that you could do to compensate the landowner can be interpreted as payment, if you hunted on it. Just buy it.

As a land owner I'm already preserving habitat, and supporting practically anything you could name, without any legal way to make the wildlife pay its own way except my trapline. If I were thinking about changing things, a wad of cash from someone who wasn't going to hunt there might work, if the amounts were large enough to compensate for the income I'd be losing. Or you could just buy it, everything is for sale if the price is high enough. So again , just buy it.

 

[doc25]

There are really one option no matter who it is. And it is

Provide or receive compensation equal to or more than the revenue that land is currently or may produce

Shawn

I think Shawn hit the nail on the head here. You also must realize that this board is comprised of hunters and sportsmen. Most farmers I know have little to no interest in the wildlife. I know a Farmer who had people come in to shoot as many moose as they could because they destroy the Canaola.

 

[carverk]

I never bin east of Alberta I know living in BC I would never have weary about it thers more crown land then farms
Free is best I don't pay for camping ether

 

[umchorn2]

As a landowner I would leave it for hunting if I could charge hunters a fee to hunt. It is currently illegal to do so.

I suppose landowners like us could become an outfitter? But for the 3 quarters I own that I bought to protect as habitat for mainly myself how much can I really charge? Not enough to make a living but I'm sure 3-4 thousand a year for big bear, deer, waterfowl, grouse and rabbits is more than fair. Of course some conditions would apply to the hunter, who would have to follow some basic quality or trophy game management principles to ensure the genetics are improved rather than impoverished.

There are some who still believe it's not right to pay to play. That no one owns wildlife even though its pretty clear who supports their existence when the plowed fields are all around you while your 1800 acres is untouched wilderness. Truth is many species have been protected in other countries and nurtured back to healthy, stable, huntable populations through a marketplace where landowners and hunters can exchange compensation legally for goods or services and reinvest such funds into wildlife conservation.
Many US states have been very successful at wildlife management through this approach.

 

[bigrack]

As a farmer and hunter in eastern Ontario I've seen a lot of changes in the landscape here in my 50 years. Seems every time I go somewhere there's another 100 acre section of bush been leveled to make way for cash crops. We've left a section of our property for alone for wildlife and at 10,000 an acre I've been tempted to level and tile it. But I won't in what's left in my life hopefully my son feels the same way once I pass it on. It's sad to me and my wife when we've become so greedy we can't find space for wildlife.

 

[Jetman]

As somebody who dreams to one day own a sustainable parcel of land , mixed field and bush , a nice pond.. One can only dream.
Land is the only thing you can't make more of!

 

[remyltr]

As a landowner I would leave it for hunting if I could charge hunters a fee to hunt. It is currently illegal to do so.

also the game animals on the piece of land do not belong to the landowner they belong to the crown.

there is parcels of land i would like to purchase the 'hunting rights' but this isnt allowed,so i get the landowners permission
to post the land accordinly

 

[Ardent]

On just a quarter? Really doesn't matter, area's too small to call it a reserve of any kind. Depends solely what you want to do there, earn a living or play. The deer population at large isn't going to notice the difference a single quarter makes, coyotes perhaps could benefit. Now if you had a few thousand acres different considerations.

 

[skhunter]

I suppose landowners like us could become an outfitter? But for the 3 quarters I own that I bought to protect as habitat for mainly myself how much can I really charge? Not enough to make a living but I'm sure 3-4 thousand a year for big bear, deer, waterfowl, grouse and rabbits is more than fair. Of course some conditions would apply to the hunter, who would have to follow some basic quality or trophy game management principles to ensure the genetics are improved rather than impoverished.

There are some who still believe it's not right to pay to play. That no one owns wildlife even though its pretty clear who supports their existence when the plowed fields are all around you while your 1800 acres is untouched wilderness. Truth is many species have been protected in other countries and nurtured back to healthy, stable, huntable populations through a marketplace where landowners and hunters can exchange compensation legally for goods or services and reinvest such funds into wildlife conservation.
Many US states have been very successful at wildlife management through this approach.

The difference between me and you is I make my living off of the land, you bought yours for the purpose of hunting.

If I have 1000 acres of prairie that I could break up and seed to Peas, do really expect me to leave it native for the sake of hunting without any compensation?

Also farming the land and wildlife habitat is not an either or proposition, if I had a dollar for every deer or goose shot on my pea field in the fall...

 

[skhunter]

also the game animals on the piece of land do not belong to the landowner they belong to the crown.

there is parcels of land i would like to purchase the 'hunting rights' but this isnt allowed,so i get the landowners permission
to post the land accordinly

Not claiming I own the wildlife, only charging to access the land.

So the land owner is giving you exclusive rights to hunt? Do you own the wildlife on that land?

 

[umchorn2]

On just a quarter? Really doesn't matter, area's too small to call it a reserve of any kind. Depends solely what you want to do there, earn a living or play. The deer population at large isn't going to notice the difference a single quarter makes, coyotes perhaps could benefit. Now if you had a few thousand acres different considerations.

Agreed. But lets say as an example in a Municipality theres maybe 160 acres out each 640 acre section that is currently natural. In some areas less in some more but lets use 25% as the percentage of the RM land not currently being used for agruculture. As a hunter I want to be able to legally offer a landowner money, goods or services to make sure they keep that quarter section or however big that block of land is in it's natural state.

As a landowner, I want the ability to negotiate with a hunter or conservationist or who ever and receive financial compensation or payment in kind...without breaking any laws. And I want the ability to do this not just with people from Saskatchewan or Manitoba or Canada but from all over the world.

Remember, if you're not getting permission to hunt a parcel already, what do you care who hunts it and what they pay or get paid. At least that quarter or section or township is protected for hunting interests. Far as I know, that's good for wildlife, hunters, the government and our faltering economy.