Most of those are in the 300's. The Hutterite Colonies are basically what you describe. The Jensen? Ranch and other "ranches" are call in advance, limited numbers, meet them at the homestead type operations though.
RAMP - What does everyone think?
- Thread starter Pudelpointer
- Start date
Most of those are in the 300's. The Hutterite Colonies are basically what you describe. The Jensen? Ranch and other "ranches" are call in advance, limited numbers, meet them at the homestead type operations though.
I call weeks in advance so I do get ahold of people. It's a novel idea to some I know.
It's on the website.
Suka
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
You have to go back 10-15 yrs to understand the implications. The "pilot" area encompasses land where the landowners didn't allow hunting, then #####ed and whined about elk ruining their haystacks, lobbying for gov't compensation. Ralph told them if they don't want elk in their haystacks, park a hunter on top of them.
My personal opinion is this is a very bad idea that will bite us all in the ass within another 10 yrs. The last thing that will get new people into the sport is having to pay to access land after they've paid for courses, paid for licences, paid for guns, ammo, gas, etc.
You don't think that'll happen, look across the pond.
It is also my personal opinion that this will pave the way to outfitters "buying" rights to large tracts of land. I have no problem with outfitters, just the possibility of hunting becoming a "rich only" sport. I'd wager in Ab less than 20% of hunters are "horn hunters". I think most in Ab are "just happy to be there", and are hoping to put meat in the freezer. I'm also sure Alberta outfitters need another expense like they need a liberal mp.
Let's not forget in Ab hunters are the AB govt's population control of wild game, and we are licenced by the AB gov't to do so. The 2 or 3 large companies that think they should be paid for the harvest of public game, (MM ring a bell?) can kiss my ass.
That's my 2 cents.
My personal opinion is this is a very bad idea that will bite us all in the ass within another 10 yrs. The last thing that will get new people into the sport is having to pay to access land after they've paid for courses, paid for licences, paid for guns, ammo, gas, etc.
You don't think that'll happen, look across the pond.
It is also my personal opinion that this will pave the way to outfitters "buying" rights to large tracts of land. I have no problem with outfitters, just the possibility of hunting becoming a "rich only" sport. I'd wager in Ab less than 20% of hunters are "horn hunters". I think most in Ab are "just happy to be there", and are hoping to put meat in the freezer. I'm also sure Alberta outfitters need another expense like they need a liberal mp.
Let's not forget in Ab hunters are the AB govt's population control of wild game, and we are licenced by the AB gov't to do so. The 2 or 3 large companies that think they should be paid for the harvest of public game, (MM ring a bell?) can kiss my ass.
That's my 2 cents.
Arranging in advance is good, but every landowner I have ever spoken to still wants you to check in prior to the hunt in case he moves critters or equipment from one spot to another. It's called good manners, a novel idea I know.
Jordan Smith
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Calgary, AB
There are pros and cons.
On the one hand, it's good to get new hunters into the sport and increase our numbers and strength in the community.
On the other hand, my first 10 years of big game hunting were spent finding land to hunt on and getting permission to hunt it. I was the only hunter in my family- I didn't have a dad who was a hunter to get me into it, I had the blaze the trail on my own. I've hunted that hutterite colony for the last few years, and every time I went out, I was the only one there. Looks like that spot is now ruined.
On the one hand, it's good to get new hunters into the sport and increase our numbers and strength in the community.
On the other hand, my first 10 years of big game hunting were spent finding land to hunt on and getting permission to hunt it. I was the only hunter in my family- I didn't have a dad who was a hunter to get me into it, I had the blaze the trail on my own. I've hunted that hutterite colony for the last few years, and every time I went out, I was the only one there. Looks like that spot is now ruined.
I'm sorry Jordan, but your post is a near perfect illustration of the onion-like layers of ignorance that will let RAMP grow into what it's really intended to be: full blown pay-for-access hunting.
The issue has nothing to do with increasing hunter numbers, nor is it about paying your dues or 'ruined spots'. Except in the minds of the selfish, uninformed or gullible.
Two years ago, the voting delegates of the AFGA voted UNANIMOUSLY against "Open Spaces" which was the predecessor to RAMP.
Last year, the vote on supporting RAMP was ALMOST unanimously against, but not unanimous. A lot of commentary that sounded just like your post was heard. And so it goes, like creeping death.
EDIT to add: Suka has it mostly right. If it is acceptable for the government to pay landowners for 'user days' to hunt on their land, how far are we from it being LEGAL for groups, individuals, outfitters or whomever to pay a landowner for exclusive 'user days'? (We all know it happens now right? It's just not legal.)
Those that equate the 'thin edge of the wedge' concept with tinfoil hats are fools.
"Well, I guess..." is the marching chant of pluralism. Neither - nor is slowly replaced by both - and, until we have nothing that we wanted or fought for.
The issue has nothing to do with increasing hunter numbers, nor is it about paying your dues or 'ruined spots'. Except in the minds of the selfish, uninformed or gullible.
Two years ago, the voting delegates of the AFGA voted UNANIMOUSLY against "Open Spaces" which was the predecessor to RAMP.
Last year, the vote on supporting RAMP was ALMOST unanimously against, but not unanimous. A lot of commentary that sounded just like your post was heard. And so it goes, like creeping death.
EDIT to add: Suka has it mostly right. If it is acceptable for the government to pay landowners for 'user days' to hunt on their land, how far are we from it being LEGAL for groups, individuals, outfitters or whomever to pay a landowner for exclusive 'user days'? (We all know it happens now right? It's just not legal.)
Those that equate the 'thin edge of the wedge' concept with tinfoil hats are fools.
"Well, I guess..." is the marching chant of pluralism. Neither - nor is slowly replaced by both - and, until we have nothing that we wanted or fought for.
Time will tell, but charging the public for access is illegal. Any level of government charging the public for access will not only be illegal but detrimental to their procedures. By charging access, they will lose revenue. By paying a subsidy to certain high populous areas, the concept of increasing hunter numbers also increases income on many levels. Charging you or I direct will cut their own throats in the end and they know it. I haven't looked at the area to determine hunter to animal ratios, but it also looks like the program runs in areas with high ratios. Farmers need wildlife culled, increased hunters in said areas does the job, brings in more cash from tags and licensing and boosts local economies. It doesn't matter who thinks what, it is here. In another 2 years we will see what happens, but I'm not going to lose sleep over any of this. You can look only at the bad, but when you look at the real situation, not speculation of what could be, this is a good program that will enhance the hunting experiance for many.
Either I'm confused, or you are. Or both?
The government isn't charging anyone (save the taxpaying public in general) for access. Right now, the gov't is paying private landowners to allow access to their properties. This is likely to lead to landowners charging the user directly. (Which as you mentioned, is currently explicitly illegal, though it happens anyway on some scale.)
That's the rotten black heart of this fight.
Let me reword my last post. As it sits charging public for access is illegal, whether it be private landowners or by the government. There are some who say the government will start charging for access to RAMP lands, or some landowners will charge on their own. I don't believe either will happen, and for the latter possibility it would be of no benefit to them.
Why do landowners allow you to tresspass on their property now to take wildlife off their lands and to drive across their fields? You wouldn't want the guy on the other end of town coming into your yard to have a picinic with his family, so why do they allow it? Wildlife is nothing more then a nuisance to the farmers. Deer and antelope compete with the cattle and other livestock for grazing areas which the landowners pay for. They do not want to feed the deer like a tourist may, they want them killed. Some feel that way about coyotes and most feel that way about gophers. By any landowner charging for access they would simply lose the benifit of hunters coming to help them out. There will be those willing to pay for access for sure. The wealthy don't mind, but the majority of us wont.
That's the private perspective. Those who say the government will start charging will face the same delema. What happened when they brought in thelong gun registry? Many quit hunting. What happened when they brought in the lead shot ban? Many gave up waterfowl. What would happen if they started charging for access? Most would refuse to hunt on their lands. (I would) Hunting is more then meets the eye. It is an incredible revenue generator on all scales. The anti hunters don't give money to buy lands and create habitat. We do with the tags we buy and clubs we join. The antis don't travel around the world giving their money to locals, whether it's in the form of hotels, guides, resteraunts or stores. We do, which is why you still see 'Welcome Hunters' signs. If they started charging they would lose far more revenue then they would take in from access fees. So no matter how you look at this program, as it sits right this minute, it is a positive program. Hunters and fishermen now have access where in most locations nothing more then a check in station is required. It will provide SRD with 'free' data on how many different users frequent specific areas and will collect contact info. Landowners have extra income and our tax dollars aren't going to fund anti hunting causes like we see so often. Some hunters are ticked because the land 'they worked so hard for' is now open to the public, but many more will get to benefit from it. And anything else that may or may not happen down the road is pure speculation. For new hunters and even old hunters this will be a great oppertunity, and after the three year term is up I speculate (!) the info they collected from users will result in a few surveys about the success rates and what not. If this works out, great. If not, well, again time will tell.
Why do landowners allow you to tresspass on their property now to take wildlife off their lands and to drive across their fields? You wouldn't want the guy on the other end of town coming into your yard to have a picinic with his family, so why do they allow it? Wildlife is nothing more then a nuisance to the farmers. Deer and antelope compete with the cattle and other livestock for grazing areas which the landowners pay for. They do not want to feed the deer like a tourist may, they want them killed. Some feel that way about coyotes and most feel that way about gophers. By any landowner charging for access they would simply lose the benifit of hunters coming to help them out. There will be those willing to pay for access for sure. The wealthy don't mind, but the majority of us wont.
That's the private perspective. Those who say the government will start charging will face the same delema. What happened when they brought in thelong gun registry? Many quit hunting. What happened when they brought in the lead shot ban? Many gave up waterfowl. What would happen if they started charging for access? Most would refuse to hunt on their lands. (I would) Hunting is more then meets the eye. It is an incredible revenue generator on all scales. The anti hunters don't give money to buy lands and create habitat. We do with the tags we buy and clubs we join. The antis don't travel around the world giving their money to locals, whether it's in the form of hotels, guides, resteraunts or stores. We do, which is why you still see 'Welcome Hunters' signs. If they started charging they would lose far more revenue then they would take in from access fees. So no matter how you look at this program, as it sits right this minute, it is a positive program. Hunters and fishermen now have access where in most locations nothing more then a check in station is required. It will provide SRD with 'free' data on how many different users frequent specific areas and will collect contact info. Landowners have extra income and our tax dollars aren't going to fund anti hunting causes like we see so often. Some hunters are ticked because the land 'they worked so hard for' is now open to the public, but many more will get to benefit from it. And anything else that may or may not happen down the road is pure speculation. For new hunters and even old hunters this will be a great oppertunity, and after the three year term is up I speculate (!) the info they collected from users will result in a few surveys about the success rates and what not. If this works out, great. If not, well, again time will tell.
At what point does this become a politcal issue? Yo taxpayer! Did you know you're paying for hunters to have access?
The WRA lost it's only seat(Cardston/Taber) oddly in the same area as RAMP last election to Broyce Jabobs( who was heavily supported by Ted Morton. In fact Ted turned a Broyce Jacobs fundraiser into a RAMP/Open Spaces lecture. I have no idea what the WRA's stance on RAMP is. But rest asured if they(or another party) can stir some votes out of this(And/or embarass Morton) it is going to get serious consideration.
And then what? Tell me why Joe Public SHOULD pay for RAMP. Albert has privitized the s**t out of everything to get away from percisely this type of program. The next logical step is to put the burden of cost back on hunters and probably the burden of administration on the landowner.
AND finally, most locations have no maximum person quota. It is there if the land owners choose to use it. In all it's not a bad program if your willing to take the time to learn what it's all about.[/QUOTE]
In Manitoba the legal limit for people hunting is 4 hunters per 80 acres of land. I own 80 acres and let three other people hunt the same time as me. WAY to many for 80 acres. There is just no safe shot when there is 4 people hunting rifle. Waterfowl, O.k, but not rifle.
In Manitoba the legal limit for people hunting is 4 hunters per 80 acres of land. I own 80 acres and let three other people hunt the same time as me. WAY to many for 80 acres. There is just no safe shot when there is 4 people hunting rifle. Waterfowl, O.k, but not rifle.
@Pharoah2: Now I understand what you're saying, though I disagree. I'm still in the camp that believes that once landowner compensation is given regulatory or legislative approval, the opportunity for he with the most money to buy exclusive access is a reality, without a legal barrier.
The gripe about
And for the record, this program has nothing to do with coyotes and gophers. It's about Trpohy Elk and Mule Deer in the Southern and Southwestern zones.
@Lazy Ike: Open Spaces/RAMP has always been a political issue, except that until Steady Eddie started to bugger everything up, there was no way it could be an election issue, as the PC's had everything so neatly locked down.
As for who really pays, ultimately it will be hunters, in the form of increased licensing fees. I've tried vocally and in written form to ask Minister Morton where all this money was coming from exactly, and his response was new money in the SRD budget. I asked where the new money was for more enforcement in the form of officers in the field, but he didn't want to talk about that...
The gripe about
is selfish and myopic. Private landowners should be able to do as they see fit with their land. I actually think, like MANY others (as evidenced by the ongoing discourse on RAMP at consecutive AFGA conferences) that incentives to landowners to allow access is a good thing, but not via direct dollars - for - days cash consideration.
And for the record, this program has nothing to do with coyotes and gophers. It's about Trpohy Elk and Mule Deer in the Southern and Southwestern zones.
@Lazy Ike: Open Spaces/RAMP has always been a political issue, except that until Steady Eddie started to bugger everything up, there was no way it could be an election issue, as the PC's had everything so neatly locked down.
As for who really pays, ultimately it will be hunters, in the form of increased licensing fees. I've tried vocally and in written form to ask Minister Morton where all this money was coming from exactly, and his response was new money in the SRD budget. I asked where the new money was for more enforcement in the form of officers in the field, but he didn't want to talk about that...
Jordan Smith
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Calgary, AB
I'm sorry, Silverado, but the points I raised are VERY valid, coming from a person who really struggled for years to get into hunting because of the huge challenge to find good places to hunt. The new hunter without a mentor to hold his hand and show him all the honey-holes, WILL benefit by knowing that there are good places to hunt that they have access to.
On the other hand, I'm a wee bit perturbed because of the fact that my efforts to find good spots to hunt are now wasted years, as these spots are going to be commonly hunted. Finding nice, mature animals will be far less common in these areas.
I'm not suggesting that this is a good program. In fact, I disagree with it whole-heartedly, and not for selfish reasons (although I don't like it on a personal level, either), but because of the potential dangers that could evolve from a program such as this. You know what they say about "give them an inch, and they take a mile"...
On the other hand, I'm a wee bit perturbed because of the fact that my efforts to find good spots to hunt are now wasted years, as these spots are going to be commonly hunted. Finding nice, mature animals will be far less common in these areas.
I'm not suggesting that this is a good program. In fact, I disagree with it whole-heartedly, and not for selfish reasons (although I don't like it on a personal level, either), but because of the potential dangers that could evolve from a program such as this. You know what they say about "give them an inch, and they take a mile"...
Suka
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Jordan, to find "honey holes" takes work. Area's change over time. My dad's honey hole was daisy creek. Then they graveled the trunk road, then they paved it, now it may as well have a mini-mall and quad rental place.
Start with google earth, then use the ab gov't leaseholder search program to see if it's crown. Then contact the county and buy county maps. This will give you the landowner or lease holder's name. Then spend the time to scout the area's and see if it looks like a good place to hunt.
Then worry about contacting people for permission.
I'm assuming you're in Calgary, base rule of thumb is to figure out where all the urbanite's are going, and go somewhere else. (I don't mean this to be insulting, but urbanite's seem more comfortable in "herds")
Once you find "somewhere else", find areas where trucks and quads can't go. Now you've found you're "honey hole". They're all over the place, and they're not really honey holes, they're just a good place to hunt.
In my opinion, from you're standpoint the only good I can see from ramp is it'll tell you what area's to avoid.
Start with google earth, then use the ab gov't leaseholder search program to see if it's crown. Then contact the county and buy county maps. This will give you the landowner or lease holder's name. Then spend the time to scout the area's and see if it looks like a good place to hunt.
Then worry about contacting people for permission.
I'm assuming you're in Calgary, base rule of thumb is to figure out where all the urbanite's are going, and go somewhere else. (I don't mean this to be insulting, but urbanite's seem more comfortable in "herds")
Once you find "somewhere else", find areas where trucks and quads can't go. Now you've found you're "honey hole". They're all over the place, and they're not really honey holes, they're just a good place to hunt.
In my opinion, from you're standpoint the only good I can see from ramp is it'll tell you what area's to avoid.
Not that it matters to me personally but finding hunting land is a #####. Took me four years in Manitoba to find land. then I moved provinces and it is taking me about as long I've got the land still working on the paper work.
The program sound good for now but soon enough. Other taxpayers wont like spending their money for you to hunt. To be frank it's the hunters job to locate the land not the governments. The less they are in to hunting/shooting the better they always #### it up. Eventually the landowners will be legally able to ask for money to hunt their land or the government will be issuing use permits with the deer lic. and land owners won't have control of their own land.
The program sound good for now but soon enough. Other taxpayers wont like spending their money for you to hunt. To be frank it's the hunters job to locate the land not the governments. The less they are in to hunting/shooting the better they always #### it up. Eventually the landowners will be legally able to ask for money to hunt their land or the government will be issuing use permits with the deer lic. and land owners won't have control of their own land.
Jordan Smith
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Calgary, AB
That's exactly how I've been doing it for the last 11 years (since I started hunting big game at age 15), and that process has paid off.
That's exactly my point. Some of the areas that I've worked hard to find and get into, are now "areas to avoid".
I wish people could get that through their heads, and fast.
Pudelpointer
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Lethbridge, Alberta
I am bumping this thread because for the most part it was a civil discussion and it did not get side tracked by the BS carry-over from the AO forum.
This is an important discussion to keep going.
"The new hunter without a mentor to hold his hand and show him all the honey-holes, WILL benefit by knowing that there are good places to hunt that they have access to."
Personally I thinks this was a smokescreen / feel good reason given for this project. I just do not buy it. FWIW, there is already a bunch of lands available for "new" hunters to access through the AFGA, various irrigation districts, and of course the vast majority of areas in the 300-400-500 zones.
Risking the future of public hunting in this province so that so called "newbies" can look on a website and then go hunting is a very weak argument.
The RAMP feedback card does not provide adequate space to voice opinion of the program, this is an issue that I think can be used to make a good argument about the validity of the program's review.
Let's keep this civil, and not personal, and regardless of how we feel about Ted Morton, Cormack Gates, and others, let us not fall into mudslinging or dirty politics.
Please do not make personal attacks towards each other. I do not care if you think their position is wrong, short-sighted, or even selfish, keep your post to the principals involved.
Thank you.
This is an important discussion to keep going.
"The new hunter without a mentor to hold his hand and show him all the honey-holes, WILL benefit by knowing that there are good places to hunt that they have access to."
Personally I thinks this was a smokescreen / feel good reason given for this project. I just do not buy it. FWIW, there is already a bunch of lands available for "new" hunters to access through the AFGA, various irrigation districts, and of course the vast majority of areas in the 300-400-500 zones.
Risking the future of public hunting in this province so that so called "newbies" can look on a website and then go hunting is a very weak argument.
The RAMP feedback card does not provide adequate space to voice opinion of the program, this is an issue that I think can be used to make a good argument about the validity of the program's review.
Let's keep this civil, and not personal, and regardless of how we feel about Ted Morton, Cormack Gates, and others, let us not fall into mudslinging or dirty politics.
Please do not make personal attacks towards each other. I do not care if you think their position is wrong, short-sighted, or even selfish, keep your post to the principals involved.
Thank you.
