Paid Acces To Hunt, Fish?

[jonny5]

Don't know if its true, but don't like the idea.

 

Paid access to hunt, fish?

Written by Ric Swihart Lethbridge Herald

Monday, 09 February 2009

 

 

A three-year pilot project in southwestern Alberta for paid hunting and fishing access should be implemented in the spring. Jim Csabay of Readymade, chairman of the board of the St. Mary River Irrigation District, caught Alberta Irrigation Projects Association delegates off guard Monday when he asked if Alberta Sustainable Resource Development was considering compensating private landowners for providing hunting and fishing opportunities for sportsmen.

Livingstone-Macleod MLA Evan Berger of Nanton, parliamentary secretary for SRD, deferred Csabay’s question about landowners who may not want to participate in the pilot scheduled in the Alberta Wildlife Management Unit 108, which runs from near the County of Lethbridge airport in a triangle to the American border, running along Highways 4 and 5, and unit 300, which is anchored by Cardston on the northeast, running along the southern boundary of the Blood Reserve and angling southeast along the northern boundary of Waterton Lakes National Park.

Berger said that while he has been deeply involved in much of Alberta’s proposed land development policy, he has not been involved in the paid hunting and fishing issue.

But an official with Alberta Fish and Wildlife in Lethbridge said the pilot is part of the Open Spaces concept that has been under study for more than a year and has gone through different phases as part of a recreation access management plan.

The pilot will only apply to private landowners. Qualifying landowners will enter into a contract leading to paid compensation for allowing hunting on land or access to streams and rivers across private land.

He said habitat development is another potential benefit. Landowners can tailor access to their local land conditions.

Budget constraints will limit the number of landowners who can participate. Compensation will involve several factors, including size of land base, habitat available for wildlife, riparian areas and coulees.

Compensation will be a maximum of $20 a day per hunter or fisherman allowed access to private land. It may range from $2,000 a year to $10,000, he said.

Citizens and sportsmen’s groups can expect a public information meeting in late March or into April.

The goals of the program include identifying and acknowledging the stewardship role private landowners play; gain increased access to private land, partly to keep deer populations in check and maintain a balance of habitat and wildlife on the land.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

[Harps]

This is the second step...

 

First we bend over for BC,

 

Then we take it from our own gov't.

 

Next Albertans will have to pay to walk along rivers... and they'll charge us more than "outsiders".

 

I will be taking advantage of all township line right of ways and highwater marks... it is our public right.

 

 

**Fishing, not hunting**

[duanec]

wtf?

seriously...wtf?

[headscan]

http://flyfishcalgary.com/board/index.php?showtopic=3276

 

 

[Guest RedWiggler]

Doesnt it say you only have to pay if you use there land for access. So go around if you dont want to pay or fish somewhere else. If I were a Private Landowner I would want to get compensated as well if people were using my land to hunt on or to use as an access point for fishing.

[headscan]

The way I interpret it is that the hunter/fisher does not pay the landowner for access. Instead the landowner gets paid by the program for allowing the hunter/fisher access to their land. In the case of the fisher, it would just be to cross their land to access the water that is still governed by the high water mark rule. My question is where the money to pay them will come from? Ultimately it will be us, either through our tax dollars or license fees would be my guess.

[jonny5]

The way I interpret it is that the hunter/fisher does not pay the landowner for access. Instead the landowner gets paid by the program for allowing the hunter/fisher access to their land. In the case of the fisher, it would just be to cross their land to access the water that is still governed by the high water mark rule. My question is where the money to pay them will come from? Ultimately it will be us, either through our tax dollars or license fees would be my guess.

 

Yep, I think fishing fees are crazy low in this province considering how good the fishing is..... but I don't like the idea of paying to access land... What about river usage fees? That could be the next "logical" step on this slippery slope.

 

So if you object, you should send a letter to your MP, even if its not an election year. I certainly will.

[DonAndersen]

Come on guys!!!

 

The Bow River - ya' know that little stream that collects Calgary's sewage has had paid access for years. If I recall correctly, it was started by Peter Chenyeh[sp] who started to pay landowners to keep the common folks outta the access on private land - worked too. His plan closed nearly all the access I used for years unless I was willing to pay upwards of $250/yr. for the privilege.

Of course, Chenyeh's legacy is still with us although he headed to BC to rape new waters for his paid clients.

There has been reports of paid access by other guides on other waters. Further, you think this is bad, some hunting guides have done this for years. Alberta, by no stretch of imagination, is a virgin when it come to paid access.

 

And God help us if this applied to Lease Land.

 

catch ya'

 

 

Don

 

 

[Guest 420FLYFISHIN]

i will pay if they are on their knees and my zipper is bouncing off their chin...so are they trying to say that when ever i hit the water for a day i will have to pay $20 or is this for people like the copperthornes (spelling) who owns like 80% of the land around a river? I have never had them ask me for money or anything, they have just asked if i was catch and release and if i was using barbs.

[seanbritt]

I agree with Redwiggler. If I were a landowner I would want to be compensated. What we're talking about here is direct access to the river from the property. You can always go around and access via the high water mark. In the states, private landowner access is not even a thought. If you were to go onto someone's property to access hunting or fishing you would likely be shot on the spot. I was surprised when I first moved to AB and found out all the differences to the states.

 

I would also be in favor of paying more $$ for our licenses so we could get more policing of the river. I was in BC and stopped 2x on my trip for my license. Never been asked in AB. If we want to keep our fisheries, we need more protection of it!

[monger]

Landowners do not own the fish or big game on their land...they belong to the public. Why should we have to pay to have access to them? If you are willing to pay for this public resource you better get set to compete with the wealthy who will throw more money than you at the land owner and therefore lock up the access. Rich US hunters/fisherman will be excited to exclude the locals from their honey holes.

There are many undefined questions surrounding this program. How will the landowners be monitored for who they allow on their land? Will they just let there buddies on and get $20/shot while excluding all the city folks. If this goes through in WMU 108 do you really think the rest of Alberta's landowners won't want some free cash? Where will it end? Where will all the money come from?

The program set up by the government will pay the landowner. The money isn't past directly from the sportsman to the landowner. Presently it is illegal to pay for access (that's why the unethical guys do it under the table presently).

 

See the following discussion

 

http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=27508

 

It's sad to think that landowners will only be good stewards of their land if they can get compensated for it. I wish more would consider it a privilege to have wildlife on their place

[JMasson]

Without a doubt the slipperiest of the slippery slopes. If this goes well and the landowners are pleased (Who wouldn't be pleased?) the rest of Alberta will soon follow. Then what happens next? Said landowners get pissed at watching fishermen access "their" river using the high water mark and start lobbying for Riparian leases.

 

I've said it before, don't be so naive to think that it can't happen. The high water mark is almost inalienable right in Canada but I wouldn't be at all surprised to see that right stripped away from us. What does it take to change laws? Some lobbying power and the right people in government. Hopefully the Feds would squash any such motions but that's even a little shaky.

[Harps]

JMasson

Feds, through Transportation (Navigable Waters Protection Act), can only ensure clear boating on waters deemed navigable.

 

The Provinces are in charge of land ownership/ lease issues...

If the landowners got riparian rights...

Touching the bed of the river would be considered trespassing. Boating would be okay.

 

Expect to pay to use the river and access through township road leases if the gov't moved this way.

 

***************************

Realistically, Traditional access routes should be protected by the gov't.

I'm a landowner, I know many of the issues... we now allow walking only access through our property, but we, at least, still allow access.

 

Hunting is a different matter... many landowners I know can't get enough hunters to help with nussiance deer/elk.

The issue is letting somebody you don't know on the property (nobody wants to ask)... you don't know if they'll chase livestock, leave garbage, wreak gates/fences, rutt up the land. There needs to be better education about respecting the land (proper ATV use, garbage, ethics, etc)... paying landowners is a bandaid for a much bigger problem, and I don't think it will encourage young hunter and fisher.

 

People need to start treating the land and landowners right... knowing landowners get paid is not going to encourage good use.

[nick]

the point is, say goodbye to nice landowners, because now they'll hold out on access, and petition the government to pay THEM to allow access. Their argument will be, "well, you pay Joe down south, pay me too."

[Keith]

This might not be such a bad thing. You only have to pay if you use their land, so if you use public access points then it's still free. If you want to pay there will be new places opening up. There is a simlar system in Montana where they pay farmers to leave some pheasant habitat on their land and to let people hunt on it. That system is why Montana's pheasant population and hunting is not far superior to Alberta's.

 

Personally I see this as more of a hunting issue rather than fishing. Stream beds are public land and you will be able to use them for free. Hunting requires land.

[Keith]

Without a doubt the slipperiest of the slippery slopes. If this goes well and the landowners are pleased (Who wouldn't be pleased?) the rest of Alberta will soon follow. Then what happens next? Said landowners get pissed at watching fishermen access "their" river using the high water mark and start lobbying for Riparian leases.

 

I've said it before, don't be so naive to think that it can't happen. The high water mark is almost inalienable right in Canada but I wouldn't be at all surprised to see that right stripped away from us. What does it take to change laws? Some lobbying power and the right people in government. Hopefully the Feds would squash any such motions but that's even a little shaky.

 

I don't think this will ever happen. Percentage of people who utilize riparian land for recreation >>>>>>> percentage of people who own river front land.

 

People who own river/lake front land will always be in drastic minority to the amount of people who use rivers and lakes.

[Harps]

Keith, I always though pheasant hunting was better in S. Alberta (Lethbridg Area), and largely because of the tons of habitat available... there are just more guns and shooters in Montana.

 

In terms of hunting, there is no public access that is applicable, short of going to crownland, which I'd think most hunters use anyways.

 

This Pay to Play mentality is a direct result in Alberta's urban population boom, and the gov'ts lack of management (keeping up with the pressure). I'd suspect that the majority of hunters in Alberta are landowners also and would support this, even if they own land that isn't condusive to their type of hunting (sheep/elk/antelope). Like I said, most folks likely hunt on Crown Land.

 

If this does affect fishing... expect everything to go the way of the Palmer Ranch... pay for something that we already pay for in our taxes (even though we don't pay enough).

 

Luckily the highwater mark isn't just a law... It's titled land that the province owns. To return it to the landowner, I think would be a tough process.

[monger]

Judging from the hunting forums I've been reading, there is very little support for this program. A lot of people are concerned with a potential slide to paid hunting. The big ranches down south want to have the ability to sell hunting tags to rich Americans, but their desires have been put on hold for now. It will be a sad day when private landowners get to sell a public resource for profit.

 

You guys think there is more pheasants in Alberta than Montana? Have you ever hunted CRP fields with flocks of roosters taking off in front of you?

[Harps]

Monger,

I see more in Alberta... but I live here.

I do see alot along some of the Montana backroads too...

 

I have no real clue... I was just being disagreeable.

 

I'm not really keyed into pheasants short of my friends that go out and bring me back skins and feathers.

I have followed some of the discussion on alberta outdoorsmen, but find it hard to sift through fact and fiction. Pheseants are an introduced bird, and heavily stocked... and I don't know if the habitat is enough for them here...

 

 

[Guest 420FLYFISHIN]

so as far as i have read if i access the river from a bridge i am ok (if this were all to go through). Most all my honey holes are bridge drop ins. I have had the great luck to fish some very exclusive waters just by asking the farmer and chatting with him for a few minutes. Most of them dont give a rats ass as long as you follow the rules and dont leave any crap, yes scrap line is crap.

[AndyW]

Yes fishing is mentioned in the OS initiative but will have very little, if any bearing on it. This whole initiatiive is about about hunting on the big ranches in Southern alberta and the eventual goal of the the participating landowners receiving tags to market as they see fit. The landowner permits were an integral part of the initial pilot project, but now it is just the recreational access part that they are proceeding with. The Landowner permit part of the program was not cancelled, but shelved. Time will tell how long it remains on the shelf.

[Keith]

Keith, I always though pheasant hunting was better in S. Alberta (Lethbridg Area), and largely because of the tons of habitat available... there are just more guns and shooters in Montana.

 

In terms of hunting, there is no public access that is applicable, short of going to crownland, which I'd think most hunters use anyways.

 

This Pay to Play mentality is a direct result in Alberta's urban population boom, and the gov'ts lack of management (keeping up with the pressure). I'd suspect that the majority of hunters in Alberta are landowners also and would support this, even if they own land that isn't condusive to their type of hunting (sheep/elk/antelope). Like I said, most folks likely hunt on Crown Land.

 

If this does affect fishing... expect everything to go the way of the Palmer Ranch... pay for something that we already pay for in our taxes (even though we don't pay enough).

 

Luckily the highwater mark isn't just a law... It's titled land that the province owns. To return it to the landowner, I think would be a tough process.

 

Pheasant hunting used to be better in S. Alberta. But as I said, Montana pays to protect some habitat for them. Alberta does not. As farmers have increasingly utilized all of their land in recent years there is very little left for the birds. There are more guns and shooters in Montana b/c it's better. I can't say that I know the status of pheasants throughout Alberta. I have heard there are some good spots to be found. But I can say that were I used to hunt them in Alberta has gone downhill and that where I do hunt them in Montana is far better.

 

Also, I still see this whole issue as more related to hunting that fishing. As I hunter I might be a little concerned, as I fly fisherman it doesn't really bother me. For land owners to get control of charging for riparian rights would require a battle that I don't see them winning. The lucky few that own land on lakes and rivers will always be a small minority in comparison to the urban hordes that head out on the weekend to use those resources.

 

As a hunter, I'm still not that worried. Some times you get what you 'pay' for. If farmers got some money to protect habitat I would glady fork up extra. Also, you can call game a 'public resource' but the land is private. It doesn't matter how good the pheasant hunting is on some guys ranch if he'll never let you on it. If paying a little extra means I get on then that's fine with me. But as people have said it depends on how it's done and regulated. It would be sad if all the good hunting and fishing went to the rich (Americans) but if the system was controlled by the province and price increase was controlled to a reasonable amount then I'd be all for it.

[Jeffro]

Keith if you know where to go in southern Alberta you can see over a hundred pheasant during the breeding season in less than 2 miles of road. I will say Montana has more pheasants, but that has more to do with climate than actual available habitat. Alberta has limited areas where pheasants can thrive and that belt is the deep south.

 

The fact that people blindly support this cause is disturbing. There is so much room for abuse it is disgusting. Who determines what is improved or maintained habitat and how do you quantify it in a standard measure? How does this guarantee more access? Whos gonna stop farmer Bob (not the Rev) from letting only his friends on while cashing in on it even though he would have let his friends hunt/ fish anyways. Who is going to pay for this? Why even with all the uproar from the hunting community is this still going through? People claim access is an issue in the 108 because the Deseret and MaCyntire ranch historically do not let outsiders hunt their vast properties. Other than theses two organizations access is not an issue in the 108 and any who thinks it is cannot be putting the effort forth to build relations with landowners to use there land. A knock on the door goes a long way, and even over the phone some people will allow access.

 

The places that like to pretend that wildlife are a burden to them are complete hypocrites. If they don't want the wildlife eating their hay stacks then they should allow people to make use of the wildlife to reduce their numbers, not shut everyone out and then cry about how the deer are eating their pansy's.

 

Apologies in advance as this is a sore spot for me and I cannot see any useful good come of it other than some taxpayer money getting passed around and some certain rich folk getting to hunt the trophy ranches in the south.

[AndyW]

Guys,

 

The first draft of the RAMP program that was introduced last year had no habitat component to it. The final draft has not been released, so it is anyones guess at this point if it does address habitat enhancement.

 

The management at SRD must be scratching their heads as during the past decade the farmers and ranchers in the two zones that this pilot project is happening in have been wanting ungulate numbers reduced, which is reflected by late season cow elk hunts, applicants recieving two antlerless deer tags, etc... Yet the big ranches that are pushing for this for the most part do not allow residend hunters, or very few.

 

Now landowners will be recieving a trespass fee, and possibly in the future landowner tags to sell on the open market. Seems all counter intuitive to the original management goals in the zone? WMU 108 where this is happening the Deseret Ranch ( I believe the largest ranch in the unit) only allowed a very select few hunters, and only to harvest non-trophy animals by residents. I have heard that there is an outfitter that runs some hunts on there for the big mule deer.

 

Anyone that has been following the developments of this since last year when the working group was hashing out the details know what the few participating ranches want out of this- The landowner tags. These come out of the resident hunter pool and can be sold to the highest bidder. I had one of the ranchers that is part of this group tell me that they will broker deals with outfitters to market the hunts on their ranches, letting the outfitter run it all as this is what they are doing anyhow.

 

Currently the landowner tag component (HFH) has been shelved with only the access component (RAMP) being introduced next hunting season. I find it hard to believe that the ranches that have historically not allowed resident hunting are going to now allow hunters because of a regulated trespass fee of $20 per hunter, especially when the most lucrative component for the ranchers (HFH) has been shelved.

 

They are using Montana and Utah as templates for this. Yes there are places that you can hunt as a resident there on private land through the block managenent plan. The catch is where the better habitat is that hold big deer and elk, these ranches are all tied up by the outfitters. The ranches will sell their tags to the outfitters and run exclusive areas with unfettered access as the drawing card. This is when you pay the outfitter for the tag of course. Works great if you want to pay $10k to hunt elk, but the way the whole system is structured if you don't pay the big dollars you will not be hunting the ranches with good habitat.

 

Time will tell....

[monger]

The Knight (east Deseret) ranch did let guys on to hunt elk this year(but not mule deer). Well, except for some "special" cases. The ranch is concerned with the elk eating their oats. Interestingly they would go and retrieve your elk for you if you paid $150 UP FRONT. I've heard the Deseret is VERY interested in getting a hold of tags but the MacIntyre probably won't allow hunting under any circumstance.

I don't see how this program will help the average hunter in anyway and it sets a precedent for money flowing to landowners for game (at least legally as opposed to illegally like it is now).