After living and hunting extensively in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, there are only two outcomes when it comes to hunting. Success and failure...winning and losing. Every time I purchase a tag my expectations are to come out with the animal I want, or none at all - not just any animal will do. Every bullet is part of a carefully chosen management decision, with the result being a clean kill and will affect future wildlife opportunities and outcomes in some measurable way. Success is important to me and I want to optimize my chances of success. However, Manitoba and Saskatchewan have very different approaches to wildlife management, which highly affects my chances of encountering and interacting with wildlife and achieving success.
Manitoba
1) Higher proportion of federal and provincial land. Approximately 85% is "public" land, although most is accessible only by air plane or waterway.
2) Land is generally less expensive and can be bought in larger blocks since it is less per acre than similar land in Saskatchewan
3) Landowners cannot utilize private resources to create preserves and introduce species or animals of their choosing, thus tailoring their experience or customizing their hunt.
4) Baiting and feeding wildlife is illegal with the exception of bears, which has its own restrictions. This reduces ones chances of encountering animals in a setting that is advantageous to the hunter.
5) Invests very little money into conservation and wildlife management. Until the creation of the Wildlife Enhancement Fund in 2014 which takes $5 from each hunting license sold and invests a portion into conservation and wildlife management there was no investment in conservation even though the activity directly generates well over 100 million dollars annually for the province.
6) Landowner draw tags available for resident landowners only. Landowners who reside outside of the province yet maintain productive wildlife property are unable to draw for wildlife (ex. landowner elk) even though their properties may contain healthy, growing populations which provide opportunities for others. Thus there is no incentive to maintain and conserve habitat because such non productive/non profitable assets cannot be profitable.
Saskatchewan
1) Nearly 100% private land ownership in the southern half of the province. Approximately 40% of the province is private land.
2) Higher land prices mean large parcels needed for protecting, attracting and improving wildlife is prohibitively expensive.
3) Landowners may create and maintain a wildlife preserve on their own property and may generally introduce the species and animals of their choosing, thus ensuring a sustainable, continuous supply of wildlife.
4) Baiting or feeding of cervids (deer, elk, moose) is allowed, thus hunters have an opportunity to see many animals in a location of their choosing and the choice of which to shoot under carefully controlled conditions, while the animals are in a calm state, rather than haphazardly crossing paths with sparsely distributed populations of animals spread over many miles geographically and across many individual privately owned parcels.
5) Invests millions of dollars annually into conservation and fisheries related initiatives and has done so since 1970 (hunting component) and 1984 (fishing component) whereby 30% of hunting and fishing sales revenue go into the Fish and Wildlife Development Fund. However, this number is still only fractionally proportionate when compared to public funds used to subsidize agriculture and ranching.
6) Has the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation, the largest organized wildlife membership in Canada to represent the interests of hunters and anglers. Although they are not as well funded as many American organizations like Ducks Unlimited, they represent a significant improvement above an individual when it comes to voicing concerns and grievances on behalf of sportsmen and working towards making policy changes provincially.
All provinces must balance an over abundance of hunters with an undersupply of wildlife. Each has to manage scarce resources to meet growing demand for wildlife consumption and competing land uses like agriculture and ranching which generally decrease suitable wildlife habitat. Ultimately wildlife and it's management will fail until governments allow individuals to take a greater role in it's ownership and management. Until such time wildlife will be the tragedy of the commons that it continues to be. Undervalued and over utilized, and in a world where global pressures are breaking down and selling ecosystems at wholesale prices, when has there ever been a better time to take ownership of and assume responsibility over our resources than us? Afterall, wildlife belongs to the people of each province doesn't it? Which province will succeed in protecting, attracting, and improving habitat and wildlife? Why make things harder for those of us that seek to protect, attract, improve and increase habitat and wildlife in both quality and quantity?
Manitoba
1) Higher proportion of federal and provincial land. Approximately 85% is "public" land, although most is accessible only by air plane or waterway.
2) Land is generally less expensive and can be bought in larger blocks since it is less per acre than similar land in Saskatchewan
3) Landowners cannot utilize private resources to create preserves and introduce species or animals of their choosing, thus tailoring their experience or customizing their hunt.
4) Baiting and feeding wildlife is illegal with the exception of bears, which has its own restrictions. This reduces ones chances of encountering animals in a setting that is advantageous to the hunter.
5) Invests very little money into conservation and wildlife management. Until the creation of the Wildlife Enhancement Fund in 2014 which takes $5 from each hunting license sold and invests a portion into conservation and wildlife management there was no investment in conservation even though the activity directly generates well over 100 million dollars annually for the province.
6) Landowner draw tags available for resident landowners only. Landowners who reside outside of the province yet maintain productive wildlife property are unable to draw for wildlife (ex. landowner elk) even though their properties may contain healthy, growing populations which provide opportunities for others. Thus there is no incentive to maintain and conserve habitat because such non productive/non profitable assets cannot be profitable.
Saskatchewan
1) Nearly 100% private land ownership in the southern half of the province. Approximately 40% of the province is private land.
2) Higher land prices mean large parcels needed for protecting, attracting and improving wildlife is prohibitively expensive.
3) Landowners may create and maintain a wildlife preserve on their own property and may generally introduce the species and animals of their choosing, thus ensuring a sustainable, continuous supply of wildlife.
4) Baiting or feeding of cervids (deer, elk, moose) is allowed, thus hunters have an opportunity to see many animals in a location of their choosing and the choice of which to shoot under carefully controlled conditions, while the animals are in a calm state, rather than haphazardly crossing paths with sparsely distributed populations of animals spread over many miles geographically and across many individual privately owned parcels.
5) Invests millions of dollars annually into conservation and fisheries related initiatives and has done so since 1970 (hunting component) and 1984 (fishing component) whereby 30% of hunting and fishing sales revenue go into the Fish and Wildlife Development Fund. However, this number is still only fractionally proportionate when compared to public funds used to subsidize agriculture and ranching.
6) Has the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation, the largest organized wildlife membership in Canada to represent the interests of hunters and anglers. Although they are not as well funded as many American organizations like Ducks Unlimited, they represent a significant improvement above an individual when it comes to voicing concerns and grievances on behalf of sportsmen and working towards making policy changes provincially.
All provinces must balance an over abundance of hunters with an undersupply of wildlife. Each has to manage scarce resources to meet growing demand for wildlife consumption and competing land uses like agriculture and ranching which generally decrease suitable wildlife habitat. Ultimately wildlife and it's management will fail until governments allow individuals to take a greater role in it's ownership and management. Until such time wildlife will be the tragedy of the commons that it continues to be. Undervalued and over utilized, and in a world where global pressures are breaking down and selling ecosystems at wholesale prices, when has there ever been a better time to take ownership of and assume responsibility over our resources than us? Afterall, wildlife belongs to the people of each province doesn't it? Which province will succeed in protecting, attracting, and improving habitat and wildlife? Why make things harder for those of us that seek to protect, attract, improve and increase habitat and wildlife in both quality and quantity?
