Sustenance Hunting in AB

[leslea_kate]

Thank you very much W Squared... As the ol saying goes, if ya ain't dead, there's at least a hope in hell it'll get better

L

leslea_kate, I'd just like to take a moment for a "tip of the hat" to you. After reading your previous posts on this topic, it's obvious that you've been dealt a less than stellar hand as far as health goes. Instead of feeling sorry for yourself, you've found a way to adapt to the limitations imposed on you and simultaneously shown compassion for others. I wish we had more people like you around.

 

[leslea_kate]

BINGO! I suspect you just hit the nail on the head here hon... Just because a person MIGHT qualify under the financial or dietary side, doesn't mean they'll qualify under the hunter side. When I read of this in the synopsis, the impression I was under, is that it's for qualified hunters, not just any Joe with a hankering for cheap meat.

AKA it's for hunters, who happen to need a break, not just any ol poor person.

Now if THAT is the concern, I can see where a LOT of confusion came from!

L

Helping the poor feed themselves is a fantastic idea.

I would think that many poor people over time have learned to accept charity, but I would bet the farm that there are many poor people with as much dignity as any well paid salary man and prefers to work for his meal rather than have it given to him.

About 10 years after the cod fisheries shut down in NFLD (any Newfs feel free to correct my history) the gov't opened up the cod fishing to a certain # of cod per person (10 I think). The problem was that people who've never been in a boat before wre going out on the water and getting into trouble because they don't have their sea legs or head about them. There was more than one rescue in the onset by the Coast Guard.

The only issue I have with allowing sustenace hunters to hunt in the off seson is making sure that they have the proper safety training. Without it the same safety sort of safety issues that Nfld dealt with would be very real.

 

[Foxer]

The only issue I have with allowing sustenace hunters to hunt in the off seson is making sure that they have the proper safety training. Without it the same safety sort of safety issues that Nfld dealt with would be very real.

They'll still need their hunter's license - which means training.

 

[gitrdun]

It's a bunch of bull. Anyone not having a job that pays sufficiently enough to buy meat in Alberta is 'cause they haven't applied OK. Have you seen the folks that clean tables at Timmy's....or pack groceries at Sobey's, they can hold a job.

I wonder if those that have got a satellite dish hanging off the porch and drive a diesel truck, can still be considered sustenance hunters? Probably eh, gotta leave 'em enough cash for a trip to the liquor store

Long before I ever agree to this silly law, I'd be willing to share some of my game meat with a needy family.

 

[Foxer]

It's a bunch of bull. Anyone not having a job that pays sufficiently enough to buy meat in Alberta is 'cause they haven't applied OK.

Or because they're on some species of disability and have to wait a bit for benefits to kick in, or had a job loss and just can't make ends entirely meet working at timmy's as you suggest because they've got 3 kids and a wife.

There's a thousand reasons a guy or gal might be going thru a temporary rough patch. Hell I've been thru 'em. Never had to collect welfare or even EI, but it was really touch and go there sometimes. A little wild meat is a HUGE benefit, and it's giving people their pride back to let 'em go get it themselves.

Seriously - it ain't as black and white as you think. And unless you've walked a mile in some peoples' shoes, it's not really fair to judge them.

Long before I ever agree to this silly law, I'd be willing to share some of my game meat with a needy family.

Do that anyway. There's lots who can't hunt. We've always done that.

 

[gitrdun]

There's a thousand reasons a guy or gal might be going thru a temporary rough patch. Hell I've been thru 'em. Never had to collect welfare or even EI, but it was really touch and go there sometimes. A little wild meat is a HUGE benefit, and it's giving people their pride back to let 'em go get it themselves.

Oh come on now Foxer. In a Eutopian community maybe, but you've got to know that just like every other social service like EI and Welfare, there will be abuse. And what about vegetables, fruit and bread? Tell you what, if you can prove you have a garden patch out back and likewise try to regain your pride by growing spuds, then have at 'er.

Seriously - it ain't as black and white as you think. And unless you've walked a mile in some peoples' shoes, it's not really fair to judge them.

I'm not judging anyone, just stating that I simply disagree with a program that by design is destined to be abused, fall into the hands of some that just want to extend their hunting season to "year 'round".

 

[tamatik]

wow..VERY interesting thread. I am not on welfare or EI. AND..I have no income. How do I live? I sold my boat..sold my sawmill...and now sold my house. Each thing kept me and mine fed for a few months. But I have nothing left to sell.. I have sent out 100,s of job aps in 2 yrs. Only a few (3)interviews. Never a job.. But I,m hopeful. I,m moving today to a shack in the woods with my family. No running water but we will survive. I didn,t get my moose only a $500 bill for repairs on the truck.
My hands have been operated on twice and they say theres nothing left to do..BUT I CAN WORK..given the chance.. I have over 15 yrs inventory control and a recent heavy equip operator course.
I got a call a couple weeks ago from a mining outfit in Mcmurray..I,m hopeful . The cost of living there would be a bit tramatic and I would have to leave the family but it,s something that hasta be done.
I wish there was a sustenance tag in BC.. I,m sure I would qualify. But we have none that I am aware of. I don,t want a handout..hence no welfare. Also..I,m sponsoring my wife from US and apparemtly if you sponsor..any $$ from the gov hasta be paid back. But it,s getting to the point where I,ll have no alternative.(welfare)
My wife was US military for 23 yrs and has university degrees and college degrees in hosp mgmnt ,but all she could find was chambermaid at the local motel for minimum wage. We muddle thru.
Not all low income/no income folks are lazy or total retards. Some just haven,t gotten the chance yet.
Not whining ..or complaining..Just pointing out that there,s more than one way to be down on your luck.

Flame away

Gord in BC

 

[Mumptia]

They'll still need their hunter's license - which means training.

That makes sense to me as well.

But assuming that the Gov't will do what makes sense doesn't seem to me to be very prudent.

We had a management hunt here in northern Ab last year near the B.C. border (west of Fairview if you are looking at a map) and the Gov't thought it to be proper to issue 100 licences with 4 tags attached to each licence. Sounds great but the hunting area was over an area 10 miles by 10 miles and the season was a week long. That's a pile a of potential problems

Eventhough we assume that things should be the same for us as for the sustenance hunters I wonder if the Gov't would forgo some qualifications for these people.

I'm thinking of a clause like,

" Because sustenance hunters are not hunting during the regular season, it is reasonable to assume that there are few if any hunters in the bush. It is recommended but not required for sustence hunters to complete a hnuter training course before thay begin their hunt."

I'm grasping at straws here ha,ha, but we've all seen boner decisions made by all levels of Gov't and I wouldn't be surprized if this legisaltion came down the tube with some wacky regs.

 

[Woodsman]

Hey if a moose, deer, or bear will help cash stricken families, I'm all for it. Besides this happens with or without government permits and permissions all the time. So why not keep track of it and keep the poor from being labelled as poachers and criminals?

It's one thing to make a business of it and kill and sell game. It's quite the other if it's used to feed some guy's family.

 

[powdergun]

I do not feel that the government has the ability to regulate or enforce this type of program. Consider the current state of affairs:

A person in need may take an animal illegally to feed his family. He does it discreetly and does not get caught. He does not go nuts because of fear of getting caught. If he is a person of ethics he only takes what he needs. If his actions are made legal he does not change his behaviour.

Another person who thinks differently may not take an animal for fear of getting caught but when made legal he goes nuts.

In no way shape or form do I promote illegal activity or even fault a person for feeding his family. We would all do what ever it took to feed our families in time of need. The issue is the second man in the story. What proportion of those who would qualify fit into this category. No one can say but it is probably significant and the entire hunting community will suffer.

I restate strongly that this is a program with great intent but it is impossible to implement effectively. Making a law or policy is only a tiny part of a successful program, actually making it work is where the problem is. Will it turn out that for every animal justly taken three more will be wrongly taken ? Is wasting three animals in order to have one animal used appropriately worth it. IMO NO!!!! there are far better ways to help people.

 

[Foxer]

Oh come on now Foxer. In a Eutopian community maybe, but you've got to know that just like every other social service like EI and Welfare, there will be abuse.

There's abuse ANYWAY! You think guys don't sneak into the woods NOW and zap the odd animal?!?

All this is doing is making it legal for folks who're a little short to get some meat.

And what about vegetables, fruit and bread? Tell you what, if you can prove you have a garden patch out back and likewise try to regain your pride by growing spuds, then have at 'er.

I know a lot of people who do. But the thing of it is, a garden out back is going to have to be pretty big to support you all year, and it takes TIME to cultivate one. Oftentimes, folks really don't expect to be having a tough time ahead, it just happens. I've had it happen to me - a couple of times in my life i would have sworn i was going to be perfectly fine financially, then something happened. By the time i got it dealt with i was in debt, behind in my bills and struggling like mad to make ends meet. We're not talking a year or two - suddenly being unable to work can cause you severe hardship in just a few months. And even when you get back to work you've got to 'catch up'.

I"m happy you've never had to go thru stuff like that gitrdun - I went from making what most people would call a pretty good income to no income almost overnight and it took months for me to get it sorted, and many months more to get myself back on my feet. I was lucky that there were seasons at that point - a half a moose made all the difference. Carried me thru most of the year and kept my grocery bills way down.

Just because you've never been thru it - don't be so quick to judge others. It happens ALL the time - someone gets hurt or sick and either has no disability benefits or it takes time for them to kick in - and guaranteed it's going to happen at a bad time for them financially. A year later, they can be fine! But in the meantime - you just have NO idea how much every little bit helps.

Oh - and a garden would be a little hard to manage in my apartment

I'm not judging anyone, just stating that I simply disagree with a program that by design is destined to be abused, fall into the hands of some that just want to extend their hunting season to "year 'round".

Oh give it up. Are you SEROUSLY saying that people out there will deliberately fall on hard times just to shoot one more deer in a season?!? C'mon - that's just nuts. The potential for abuse is pretty minimal. As we've heard, there's significant criteria and anyone who gets in is probably in real need.

In bc we're kind of lucky - we have great eating bears here and a spring season, so between that and the fall season there's usually something to hunt. You can find food animals that are open a good chunk of the year.

Personally - after having gone thru it i really try to keep my freezer full of meat all the time. If i don't get moose in the fall, I'll be going hard after bear in the spring to suppliment whatever deer i've got.

But for those in need - a deer to get them thru can be a HUGE benefit. And most people know SOMEONE they can call who knows where there's a few does kicking around on their property or nearby, it's not hard to find one. You'd be amazed how far you can stretch 70 - 100 lbs of meat when you want to.

 

[Foxer]

I'm grasping at straws here ha,ha, but we've all seen boner decisions made by all levels of Gov't and I wouldn't be surprized if this legisaltion came down the tube with some wacky regs.

Well it'd be worth calling and asking.

 

[Foxer]

Another person who thinks differently may not take an animal for fear of getting caught but when made legal he goes nuts.

Goes nuts? He's allowed one deer... how nuts can he go? Do the rest of us "go nuts" during legal hunting seasons?

 

[powdergun]

If you think "sustanance hunters" will take one deer you are sadly mistaken. Rather than start this ridiculous programs the governmnet could simply give out free cull tags for the regular season or possibly extend a season. They do this in Sask. and it seems to work well. I do not know what the particular details of this program will end up being but sustenance hunting is certainly not just about giving a guy a free tag. There are many in Sask now that can "sustenance hunt " in our province and there have been many many abuses of it. I saw six deer in a pile left by so called sustenance hunters that were left to rot. Another aquantance had three deer shot and left to rot in his field because he refused permision to sustenance hunters.

Controlled numbers of free tags may be the answer but certainly not sustenance hunter designation. It may be simply a legal issue but the future implications can be huge. I will shut up for good now about this but my mind is made up. Sustenance hunting designation is pure BS.

 

[Foxer]

If you think "sustanance hunters" will take one deer you are sadly mistaken.

They have one tag. If they would take animals ILLEGALLY - then they'll do that whether or not there's a program in place.

It's a sustenance tag.

BTW - we've had true sustanence hunting regs for many many years now, at least in bc. It doesn't get abused a whole lot I would be against an 'open season' sustinance hunt, but this is just a 'sustenance tag' to harvest an animal, and they're supposed to do so from select locations as I understand Lea's comments.

 

[gitrdun]

Oh give it up. Are you SEROUSLY saying that people out there will deliberately fall on hard times just to shoot one more deer in a season?!? C'mon - that's just nuts. The potential for abuse is pretty minimal. As we've heard, there's significant criteria and anyone who gets in is probably in real need.

You seriously can't think that THIS is what I'm saying. Likely not every and all sustenance hunters would be abusive. If it is such an issue, why is it that I can't give meat away to the food bank? I've tried and it isn't "government inspected"....that's why. It's sure as heck good enough for my family and myself but not good enough for a needy family? My hunting partner and I were discussing a similar topic just a few weeks ago. We added up the cost of equipment, fuel, rifle, etc and concluded that we could buy a small herd of cows instead.

In my younger days when we were raising our small children, things got a bit tough for us also. Life wasn't always a bed of roses. But I did hunt during the regular season, got my game and never asked for special favours. Maybe my opinion is somewhat tainted because seemingly nearly everyone that I've known to supposedly fall upon hard time always manages enough cash to get all pissed up. And, no I'm not painting everyone with the same brush here.

Merry Christmas.

 

[Foxer]

Likely not every and all sustenance hunters would be abusive. If it is such an issue, why is it that I can't give meat away to the food bank?

There are challenges with any un-inspected meat. It creates a huge 'health authority' issue.


I think there should be a program like that - but sadly not. You can give the meat directly to someone but not to an organization for distribution.

Y'know - we should really do something about that. Maybe a way 'around' the law is to set up a group like a 'secret santa' kind of thing - where people willing to donate meat are put on a list and people needing meat are put on a list and we just put them together. Hunters for the Hungry or something.

It's sure as heck good enough for my family and myself but not good enough for a needy family?

Its more about the legal liability of distributing meat thats not inspected. We used to give meat away all the time thru dad's church to families who could use it and were struggling a bit. The pastor knew who needed a helping hand, and a hundred and fifty lbs of meat or so spread amongst 2 or 3 families can go a long way. I'm sure other hunters do it too.

We added up the cost of equipment, fuel, rifle, etc and concluded that we could buy a small herd of cows instead.

Well you can hunt that fancy if you like. Most people I know already have a rifle or access to one - but a good 150 dollar lee enfeild will do the job nicely if you don't. Fuel is nothing if you stay close to home.

Sorry it costs you so much to hunt - but i've done a few calculations over the years and even for more 'expensive' hunts if we get animals it works out to 2 bucks a pound for the meat. That's pretty cheap. Cheaper than stores.

Like i said - for a lot of guys in small towns and such it would cost about 50 bucks for them to wind up with 250 dollars worth of meat on average. (and that's probably pretty low).

You don't need a hell of a lot to hunt. Quads and all that are nice, but not even remotely necessary. Try it 'old school' sometime - it's remarkably easy and cheap.

Maybe my opinion is somewhat tainted because seemingly nearly everyone that I've known to supposedly fall upon hard time always manages enough cash to get all pissed up.

Well - i can see where that would leave you a little jaded But not all are like that.

I'd rather see people on tough times being provided for by the wild world rather than out of my pocket. Like i say - in bc it's a little different in that we have a lot of seasons. But there really aren't a lot of seasons in the spring out your way for animals is there?

 

[leslea_kate]

Not all people have the option of "growing spuds"... No yards for example. Or being too limited in the use of hands to do it. Further, growing spuds, while useful, doesn't give the sense of accomplishment as bagging a moose does... Not by one hell of a long shot.

Further, have you called fish & wildlife? No? Yes? Have you asked your questions directly & stated your concern to them directly? Until you do, you're stating an opinion based on ignorance. ONLY by "getting it from the horse's mouth" so to speak, will you be basing your OPINION on knowledge, rather than ASSUMPTION. HUGE diff... Hence one of the BIG reasons I CALLED.

Oh & it's really difficult to NOT feel judged when by this point, I've been VERY clear on my circumstances & being one of the folks whom can benefit greatly from this HUNTING option (my points showing the difference between hunters & poachers being quite clear in previous posts)... As though *I* will abuse the system, merely because there's even an ASSUMPTION that it COULD be abused... It DOES seem insulting. Ask how YOU would see things if you were in similar circumstances.

It's NOT about extending the hunting season to year round. It's about allowing the OCCASIONAL individual to harvest an animal outside the regular season. NOT to go out hunting year round, nor to harvest an unlimited supply, as the insinuations have pretty much stated in many posts.

L

Oh come on now Foxer. In a Eutopian community maybe, but you've got to know that just like every other social service like EI and Welfare, there will be abuse. And what about vegetables, fruit and bread? Tell you what, if you can prove you have a garden patch out back and likewise try to regain your pride by growing spuds, then have at 'er.

I'm not judging anyone, just stating that I simply disagree with a program that by design is destined to be abused, fall into the hands of some that just want to extend their hunting season to "year 'round".

 

[leslea_kate]

I can't see that excuse to forgo training & qualifying. It makes NO sense at all. Especially given the federal anti-firearm attitudes. Rather than play "what if", why not call the fish & wildlife office (IT'S FREE!) and ask?

I was told it was a program for hunters. NOT just anyone. Leading me to assume that it's for those who are qualified... But if that bit of logic isn't working, I'm sure I can call the office back on Wednesday.

Heck, if folks want, they can PM me questions to ask & I'll put em all together in a post... Just for those who prefer to have everything all in one jolt. I'd be only too happy to put something together that way. Especially if it means settling nerves, concerns, ending myths and stopping some of the more extreme... "leaps of logic"

L

That makes sense to me as well.

But assuming that the Gov't will do what makes sense doesn't seem to me to be very prudent.

We had a management hunt here in northern Ab last year near the B.C. border (west of Fairview if you are looking at a map) and the Gov't thought it to be proper to issue 100 licences with 4 tags attached to each licence. Sounds great but the hunting area was over an area 10 miles by 10 miles and the season was a week long. That's a pile a of potential problems

Eventhough we assume that things should be the same for us as for the sustenance hunters I wonder if the Gov't would forgo some qualifications for these people.

I'm thinking of a clause like,

" Because sustenance hunters are not hunting during the regular season, it is reasonable to assume that there are few if any hunters in the bush. It is recommended but not required for sustence hunters to complete a hnuter training course before thay begin their hunt."

I'm grasping at straws here ha,ha, but we've all seen boner decisions made by all levels of Gov't and I wouldn't be surprized if this legisaltion came down the tube with some wacky regs.

 

[leslea_kate]

Those who poach are NOT affected by this system. Whether they have guilt or not, is irrelevant. They're outside the system & breaking the law. This option, let me say that again, this OPTION, gives those who would sustenance hunt illegally, the chance to bring their activities into line with the laws. They're regulated and they hunt where they're told & for what they're given a tag for.

AKA this program IS NOT NEW! It's just made more mainstream, by being written about in the paper! Those who didn't know, may get to know there are legal options & by that logical move, go and make the applications to legalize what they'd do either way.

As multiple posts have pointed out, and quite eloquently, it's not intended to be a solution for all people. It's NOT intended to stop all the morons who'd go out to shoot willy nilly. Those fidiots would do it, licensed or not & when they do, they SHOULD go to jail! They're still outside the law & the regs. It's NOT costing extra, as it's very limited and those patrolling are patrolling ANYWAY. So why not let em earn the SALARY they get?

You don't have to like it. You don't have to apply. BUT neither do you have the right to ##### about others who apply, until you've walked a mile or more in their shoes too.

L

I do not feel that the government has the ability to regulate or enforce this type of program. Consider the current state of affairs:

A person in need may take an animal illegally to feed his family. He does it discreetly and does not get caught. He does not go nuts because of fear of getting caught. If he is a person of ethics he only takes what he needs. If his actions are made legal he does not change his behaviour.

Another person who thinks differently may not take an animal for fear of getting caught but when made legal he goes nuts.

In no way shape or form do I promote illegal activity or even fault a person for feeding his family. We would all do what ever it took to feed our families in time of need. The issue is the second man in the story. What proportion of those who would qualify fit into this category. No one can say but it is probably significant and the entire hunting community will suffer.

I restate strongly that this is a program with great intent but it is impossible to implement effectively. Making a law or policy is only a tiny part of a successful program, actually making it work is where the problem is. Will it turn out that for every animal justly taken three more will be wrongly taken ? Is wasting three animals in order to have one animal used appropriately worth it. IMO NO!!!! there are far better ways to help people.