Alternative Land Use

[Note: The following was first published in the April 2013 Alberta Outdoorsmen.]

Copyright © 2013 Don H. Meredith

Exclusion fence around pothole showing ungrazed vegetation in middle of pasture.

I followed the other vehicles over the rolling, grazed pasture land in the parkland of central Alberta. After passing through a gate, we crossed yet another rise and came upon a large pond at the bottom of a swale, encircled by tall cattails and other riparian vegetation. Unlike other wetlands in pastures, the cattle hadn’t grazed down to the shore of this pond. They were kept out by a well made fence. Upon our approach, shorebirds and waterfowl flushed from the rich variety of plants along the shore, indicating the value of this little oasis to the wildlife that frequented this area.

In this age of governments abrogating their responsibilities to protect the environment, including fish and wildlife habitat, it is left to private individuals and organizations to pick up whatever slack they can. Of course, many conservation organizations, such as the Alberta Fish and Game Association (AFGA) and the Nature Conservancy of Canada (NCC), have been stepping up for many years to preserve wildlife habitat on private lands. It’s not an easy job, requiring many hours of effort and funds.

For example, both the AFGA and the NCC have purchased or otherwise set aside many hectares of private land to preserve habitat. Often the two organizations work together, along with other land trust groups, to acquire these lands. However, land acquisition is not the total answer.

Operation Grassland Community
Individual land owners can also do their part to keep wildlife in our future. Most are concerned about disappearing wildlife and want to help where they can but many do not have the specific information and resources to help out. To address these needs, the AFGA has since 1989 run a very successful program in southeast Alberta called Operation Grassland Community (OGC) that helps prairie land owners preserve wildlife habitat on their lands without negatively affecting their agricultural operations. Operation Grassland Community provides information about how wildlife can help reduce agricultural pests and how important habitat is for both healthy, sustainable crops and wildlife. Often, something as simple as the timing of tilling the land or opening a pasture to grazing can have a significant effect on the survivability of a bird like the burrowing owl. The program has signed up over 300 landholders to protect over 340,000 hectares (840,000 acres) of habitat. Landholders work with OGC staff to develop habitat development plans and are provided financial assistance. The program is completely voluntary and all information about specific properties and owners is kept strictly confidential.

The Parkland ALUS crew: (l-r) Gabriel Clarke, Kerri O’Shaughnessy and Jim Fisher

ALUS
Another program that came on stream in the late 1990s to help ranchers and farmers conserve wildlife is Alternative Land Use Services or ALUS. The Delta Waterfowl Foundation and Keystone Agriculture Producers started ALUS in Manitoba to help farmers and ranchers get paid for providing environmental services from their land. The program encourages individuals, industry and organizations to support those farmers who are managing their lands in a sustainable manner including providing habitat for wildlife. The program has since expanded into four additional provinces: Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Alberta and Saskatchewan.

ALUS first came to Alberta in 2010 with a pilot project in the County of Vermillion River (Lloydminster area) where more than 400 hectares of sensitive wildlife habitat have been enhanced. In 2011 the program expanded into Parkland County (west of Edmonton). The county partnered with the Delta Waterfowl Foundation and Cows and Fish (Alberta Riparian Habitat Management Society) to provide the program to some of its land owners.

It was with representatives of these groups that I visited that fenced wetland in September of last year. We were on a cattle ranch east of Hasse Lake. The owner had answered an invitation from Parkland County to participate in a pilot ALUS project. With the help of ALUS, the rancher fenced off the riparian vegetation adjacent to Hasse Lake, ensuring that her cattle would not destroy the habitat there and that fewer nutrients would reach the lake from her pastures. As well, ALUS helped her erect a wildlife-friendly fence (non-barbed top wire) around the pond in the middle of the field, including sufficient area for riparian vegetation to grow. Like many potholes in pastures, the pond had been used as a water source for the cattle and all the vegetation around it had been grazed and trampled to oblivion. Again with the help of ALUS, an alternate water source was provided for the cattle.

What does the rancher get in return for setting aside this land? By signed agreement, ALUS pays an annual fee related to the value of what the land would have produced if left in production. Also, ALUS helps pay for the materials required to protect the land. By protecting wetlands, the rancher is helping maintain the water table that supports it, and is helping maintain the biodiversity in the region that helps keep crops and our environment healthy.

“It’s a win-win situation,” Gabriel Clarke, Parkland County Sustainability Coordinator, told me on our trip to the wetland. “A land owner partnering with ALUS not only receives funding to help cover lost production, but society as a whole benefits.”

Gabriel Clarke preparing a hen house for the marsh

On this particular day, Gabriel with his colleagues, Jim Fisher from Delta Waterfowl and Kerri O’Shaughnessy from Cows and Fish, came to install two “hen houses” or nesting structures for waterfowl. The houses are placed in the water adjacent to the shore and provide protection from the weather and predators that might frequent the pond. Studies have shown that such structures can increase nest success by as much as 85%.

Kerri O’Shaughnessy told me that baseline environmental information is collected at the start of each ALUS project, and reassessments are made at least every five years. Each assessment documents the plant and animal species on the protected land, providing an indication of the biodiversity and whether it is increasing.

Funding sources for ALUS vary locally. Parkland County ALUS projects are currently being supported with funds and “in-kind” service from the county, Cows and Fish, the Alberta Conservation Association, Wildlife Habitat Canada and The W. Garfield Weston Foundation.

Like Operation Grassland Community, farmers and ranchers participate in ALUS on a strictly voluntary basis. They sign agreements that cover three-year periods, after which the landowner may opt out of the program. The program targets environmentally sensitive land; for example, crucial fish and wildlife habitat or critical sources of water. Eligible projects might include: protecting/creating pollinator (e.g., wild bee) habitat, creating multi-row shelterbelts, enhancing riparian areas, restoring wetlands, creation of wildlife friendly fences and artificial nests for birds.

The amount of land enrolled in the program is capped at 20% unless special consideration is made for a high proportion of environmentally sensitive land. As well, wherever possible, ALUS projects are integrated into other existing conservation projects.

As you can see, if you are a landowner interested in protecting some wildlife habitat on your property, there are options. If programs are not available in your area, perhaps you should contact your county or local conservation group to see about bringing them into your area. What is becoming clear is that you are not going to get help from our federal and provincial governments in the near future.

www.donmeredith.ca

Interested in reading an award-winning outdoor adventure novel? Check out  The Search for Grizzly One and Dog Runner.

The Hunter/Angler as Naturalist

[Note: The following was first published in the March 2013 Alberta Outdoorsmen.]

Copyright © 2013 Don H. Meredith

One of the things I enjoy about still hunting is how acute my senses become trying to detect any small sound, sight or scent that might provide a clue to the presence of a game animal. Of course, the game animal is my primary target but such sensitivity also allows me to observe a lot of other things along the way.

Barred owls are often active during the day but can be easily missed if one is not observant.

That’s what happened one November afternoon when I was still hunting through some bush along the bank of a river. I was following game trails over ridges and down ravines, being careful to go very slow and stop often to listen for other animal movements, perhaps in reaction to mine. As I stopped before entering an opening, I heard the staccato “chik, chik, chik” of a red squirrel defending its territory. Only this call was shriller and louder than normal. I searched the shrubs and blown-down trees ahead of me to find a Cooper’s hawk stooping at something at the top of a scrub willow. I quickly identified the object as the red squirrel, now diving into the protection of the shrub. Missing its target, the hawk perched in a nearby poplar to watch. The cheeky squirrel returned to the top of the shrub and started its tirade again, obviously directed at the hawk. The hawk lifted off and stooped the squirrel again. The squirrel once again dove for cover, avoiding the hawks talons by millimetres.

The hawk came to my side of the clearing and perched in a spruce to watch the bush where the squirrel disappeared. I watched too, totally fascinated by this little drama. Soon, the squirrel climbed the shrub, spotted the hawk, and renewed its tongue lashing. As if following a script, the hawk launched off its branch, swooped down on the squirrel as the latter dove for cover. This time the squirrel didn’t wait but made a run for the safety of the far spruce trees. On its way, it screamed at the hawk trying to get at it through the tangle of willow branches. The hawk gave up and returned to its perch in the poplar tree. The squirrel stopped on the ground two or three metres from the spruce trees and resumed its chatter, although a bit subdued. A staring contest ensued for two or three minutes before the squirrel finally made a last sprint for the trees. The hawk launched but missed the squirrel as the latter rocketed up a spruce tree. The hawk circled the clearing before returning to its perch. The red squirrel, now safely ensconced and out of sight in the spruce branches, continued its tirade. The hawk finally flew off. I resumed my hunt and soon became the target of the squirrel’s derision.

As the sound of the squirrel faded behind me, I thought of how easy it would have been to miss the incident if I had just been walking through the bush from point A to B, or indeed driving a quad or other motorized vehicle.

I have had many similar experiences while hunting, including waiting at deer stands. I carry a portable stool and some camouflage cloth with me when I’m deer hunting so I can construct a quick ground blind if I find a suitable place to ambush deer. When I describe this to people, some wonder how it is I can just sit there, restricting my movements, for the several hours I’m often at a stand. I explain it is relatively easy because of all the things I see by being quiet and camouflaged. Not only do I see deer, elk and moose but I also see many birds, small mammals and insects. I’ve watched mice and shrews flip leaves along the forest floor searching for insects, and weasels sniff my boots. I’ve seen marten chase red squirrels through trees, and once saw a fisher chase a marten. I’ve had a coyote walk right up to my blind, sniff my scent and then stare at me in shock for a split-second after I said “hello”.  It then rocketed away only to stop about 20 metres away to look back at me as if to confirm what it saw.

The pileated woodpecker is not often seen unless the observer is quiet.

I’ve been a naturalist, or someone who studies nature, for as long as I can remember. Indeed, I’m not sure what came first, the naturalist or the hunter. I believe I had interest in both at about the same time, but as a boy living in a large city it was much easier to develop my natural history interests. It wasn’t until I was a teenager that I was able to develop my interest in hunting. To me, it was just a natural extension of my interest in the natural world and eventually led to my becoming a wildlife biologist.

Unfortunately, most people these days don’t look at hunting and natural history that way. In our current society, where we prefer to categorize people before understanding them, it seems to be assumed that if you hunt, you must be some sort of person who hates nature because if you are truly interested in the natural world, you wouldn’t hunt, would you?

Well of course you would. I know many hunters and anglers who maintain bird and mammal lists and are interested in animal behavior of all kinds, not just the animals they hunt or fish. Indeed, some of the most knowledgeable naturalists I’ve met in the bush have been trappers who have a curiosity about all animals they encounter. I’m sure that curiosity makes them better trappers who also have a better understanding of their place in the world.

I would argue that an interest in natural history should be part and parcel of what a complete outdoor person should be. I cringe when I hear a hunter or angler complain about his or her licence money going to the study of a non-game species. While I agree much of that money should go to game management studies, non-game studies are just as important in terms of understanding how the natural world works and keeps all species (including game and ourselves) healthy. I’m proud as both a hunter and a naturalist of the contributions I make to that research in whatever way I can. We all should be.

It’s not hard to learn natural history, especially this day and time. All you need is a curiosity about what an animal (or plant) is and how it makes a living. Simple Internet searches will come up with much information, and of course there are the old, tried and true field books. You can even find this information using smartphone apps if that works for you. With access to this basic information, the best teacher is nature herself. Get out and get in it. Instead of riding a quad to a deer stand, walk. Even in the predawn you will hear and sense things you otherwise would not. And being a naturalist is not restricted by seasons. You can do it at any time of the year and stay active as an outdoors person year around. Being a naturalist is a soul-enriching hobby that makes your outdoor trips all the more interesting and exciting.

www.donmeredith.ca

Interested in reading an award-winning outdoor adventure novel? Check out  The Search for Grizzly One and Dog Runner.

Pushback

[Note: The following was first published in the February 2013 Alberta Outdoorsmen.]

Copyright © 2013 Don H. Meredith

It’s something I thought I would never see in this country: the federal government’s abandonment of its obligation to protect the environment and the resources that depend on that environment. That indeed is what has happened with the passing of the two omnibus bills, C-38 and C-45, making wholesale changes to the federal Environment Assessment, Fisheries and Navigable Waters acts, among others, without consulting stakeholders or even allowing proper debate in Parliament. All of this to allow the petroleum industry to have its way with pipeline corridors and other developments. Our government is willing to sacrifice all to deliver cheap oil and gas to American and Asian markets—talk about retrograde thinking. And it does not seem to care about the concerns of its fellow Canadians who hold a clean environment and healthy wildlife populations as part of their Canadian heritage. Indeed, the federal government seems to take great delight in bullying these people, casting aspersions on their character and loyalty to the country

The omnibus bills have removed environmental protections for most of our rivers and streams.

At first it appeared the Canadian public was going to let this bullying slide. However, as the consequences of these actions have become clear, there is considerable pushback building over both environmental and democratic concerns. The most notable has come from First Nations in the form of  the “Idle No More” movement, which is protesting the unilateral changes the government made to the Indian Act in Bill C-45 as well as the environmental acts listed above. Now, it is easy to dismiss this movement as just another native protest that will not lead to much except maybe an agreement to talk more about First Nations grievances that never seem to be resolved because of lack of action on both sides of the issue. However, I detect this may be something more.

For example, my e-mail inbox has been inundated with messages from people I never expected to be politically galvanized, urging me (among others) to write members and ministers of Parliament protesting the passage of the omnibus bills and expressing support for Idle No More. Many of these people I have known for years in the outdoor and biological communities who are usually politically conservative in their thinking. That is, they prefer to see less government—to a point. They also understand how important the environment is to the well-being of both human and wildlife populations, and that it is only government that can provide the level playing field that protects that environment while allowing planned development of our natural resources. They also understand how much work went into the creation of the Fisheries, Environmental Assessment and Navigable Water acts. Although they may not be happy with how these acts have been enforced in the past, they consider them to be the foundation of Canada’s environmental policy. The federal government’s passage of these omnibus bills, which in effect reduced protection for most fish, wildlife and waterways, crossed a “line in the sand” with these people who otherwise would vote for a government that wishes to balance the budget and lower taxes.

They twigged on the Idle No More movement because the First Nations have pulled all these issues under one hat. First Nations are the one cultural group in our society that acknowledges the importance of the environment and the diversity of creatures it supports in most aspects of their culture and traditions. Sure, individuals and groups have not always respected these traditions, and I’m sure we can all relate examples (as we can for non-aboriginal citizens), but nonetheless, the concept is engrained in their lives in ways that put our non-aboriginal cultures to shame. But what is most important is that they are finally doing something about it. Their special relationship with the federal government (as nation to nation) has potential for causing a lot of grief for that government, both nationally and internationally, if it does not respect their concerns.

Why now? A good question but I think a lot has to do with the unprecedented and undemocratic manner in which these changes were made. First Nations have always chafed from unilateral decisions made by federal governments on their behalf, but seem to get bogged down in bureaucratic snarls designed to bully them into place. Now, non-aboriginals are experiencing the same thing: being treated like children by a government that believes it knows best and doesn’t need to consult or take wise council from experts or stakeholders. The result is an opportunity to band together under a common cause and force this government to realize its democratic and environmental responsibilities.

Normally such actions by a government would not be tolerated by opposition politicians. However, the Conservatives have succeeded very well in dividing and indeed conquering the opposition. The Liberals remain in the wilderness, delaying their leadership convention to the point where they will continue to be a non-contender in the next election. The New Democrats will have difficulty breaking out of their Quebec stronghold without risking losing ground there. The Greens have an opportunity to make gains, but whatever they gain will further fracture the opposition and further ensure another Conservative majority.

So, what can be accomplished to return integrity to our environmental management while the political parties sort out their relevance to the electorate? In short, a lot. First of all, the federal government is not the only player in the game. Provincial governments will have to step up and fill the gaps the feds have created in protecting the environment. That may be difficult for the Alberta government who is already deep into the pockets of the petroleum industry, but other provinces might indeed be able to shame the feds by passing the necessary legislation to ensure their environments remain intact. However, this will not happen unless people make their views known to their governments. Even here in Alberta our government is sensitive to its lack of environmental oversight. Nevertheless, a provincial patchwork of environmental protections across the country is not ideal; but it will be necessary if we hope to recover any of what we’ve lost.

Protections for much fish habitat in lakes have been removed.

The federal government is not immune to such pressure, either. They obviously believe the majority of Canadians will just accept these changes—even though the Conservatives never campaigned on them and cannot claim a mandate to make them. However, if we truly value our democracy, and environmental and wildlife heritage, we have to make sure the federal government understands that unilateral changes of this magnitude are not acceptable. Yes, the Environment Assessment, Fisheries, Navigable Waters and Indian acts most likely required some changes to bring them up to date and streamline processes; but they did not deserve the wholesale changes that totally changed their intent—not without proper consultation with stakeholders, experts and fellow parliamentarians. The feds must learn to show humility, admit they did wrong and seek to make amends.

However, bullies are reluctant to admit they are wrong. They prefer to keep on bullying as long as their victims let them do so. Pushback is something you do to a bully when you’ve had enough of the bullying. I’ve had enough of the federal government bullying. Have you?

www.donmeredith.ca

Interested in reading an award-winning outdoor adventure novel? Check out  The Search for Grizzly One and Dog Runner.

The Value of Access

[Note: The following was first published in the January 2013 Alberta Outdoorsmen.]

Copyright © 2013 Don H. Meredith

Should you pay for access to private land?

One of the first economic models you learn, probably in grade school, is that of “supply and demand” where the price of a good or service is determined by the amount of the good or service available and the demand for that good or service. It drives a lot of what we do in the market place in terms of what price to pay and whether or not we buy a particular product. If it’s cheap and we have the money, we might buy just because we can. If it’s expensive, however, we may decide it’s not worth it and move on to some other product that is cheaper or more needed.

A provider of a good or service, seeing a larger demand for his or her product than he can deliver, might try to increase production. However, he might find that he is already at his capacity because his resource supply is limited, and increase the price within the limitations dictated by his competition. Such is the situation we face with many of our natural resources. While there are fixed amounts of oil, gas, minerals, timber, food and wildlife in Alberta (and the world), there are ever increasing numbers of people demanding to use them. Unfortunately for our fish and wildlife, those resources are often sacrificed when they come into conflict with other resource extraction.

This is the conundrum the various regional advisory councils (RACs) of the Land Use Framework (LUF) face when writing their regional land use plans. Despite LUF’s initial goal of having all seven regional plans in place by 2012, only two have been initiated: the lower Athabasca and South Saskatchewan regions. Of these, only the lower Athabasca RAC has a plan approved by government. This region is dominated by the extraction of oil from the tar sands on crown land. Although Fort McMurray has an exploding human population, the largest human effect on the region is the world’s demand for cheap petroleum energy. Balancing that demand against the needs of both local and provincial residents was fraught with difficult decisions, and I leave it to the reader to determine if the plan will work. My major concern with this and other plans is the “elephant in the room” that few want to discuss: the ever increasing human demand for resources. When do we say we are at the limit of what resources we can supply without irreparably hurting our quality of life?

A case in point is the proposed “paid access for hunting” in the pending South Saskatchewan Regional Plan that Rob Miskosky discussed in the December Alberta Outdoorsmen. Of all the regions in Alberta, the South Saskatchewan drainage is most directly impacted by human population. It has the highest population, the least water and the most privately held land of the seven regions. As Dr. Brad Stelfox and the ALCES group have repeatedly illustrated with their extensive research in the region, much of that land is oversubscribed by human development and the environment is suffering as a result.

Under such conditions, competing interests for many of the resources available are finding the costs for those resources escalating. In that environment, it is not surprising that landowners would like to get paid for allowing access to fish and wildlife. The demand is getting higher and the supply lower, and why not pay the landowner for maintaining fish and wildlife habitat? However, as I have previously pointed out, paying for access to fish and wildlife violates at least three of the basic tenets of the North American Wildlife Conservation Model: 1) no one should own wildlife 2) no one should profit from the sale of wildlife; and 3) every citizen should have an equal right to hunt and have access to hunting areas.

Owning Wildlife
It can be argued that charging for access to land to hunt or fish is not really owning wildlife. The wildlife is still owned by the public through the Crown and is free to move from one piece of land to another; all the landowner is doing is charging a fee to get to the wildlife on his land. It’s a good argument except that if taken to its logical conclusion under the supply and demand model, only those affluent enough to afford the fee will be able to access wildlife on private land. And as more public land is sold or its use restricted, soon we have the problem our European ancestors faced in their homelands: only the wealthy are able to hunt or fish.

Sale of Wildlife
Similarly, it can be argued that charging for access is not really selling wildlife. How can you sell something you don’t own? However, the effect is the same: private individuals are profiting from the wildlife on their lands, depriving those who cannot afford the market price access to the resource.

As Miskosky pointed out, this issue has been with us for a long time. Former Sustainable Resource Minister, Ted Morton, had good reason to bring forward the ill fated Resource Access Management Plan and the Hunting for Habitat programs back in 2008. He lived and hunted in the South Saskatchewan River region and knew the difficulties hunters were having accessing private lands. What he didn’t realize was how strongly Albertans valued their right of free access to wildlife. However, the problem still remains: how do we compensate landowners for maintaining fish and wildlife habitat? If we look at what is occurring in some other jurisdictions in North America, the prospects are not promising.

Utah
For example, Utah has taken a few more steps down the road to privatization of wildlife than Alberta. Like many jurisdictions, the government allocates most hunting licences through draws. As reported in the December 1^st New York Times, hunters in Utah must wait from 10 to 20 years to get many licences. That is unless they have the funds to purchase hunting licences directly from private landowners.

If landowners are not compensated in some way, we may see more signs like this one.

To placate ranchers for the damage elk, deer and antelope do to forage crops for cattle, the government issues allotments of vouchers for hunting licences to ranchers. The ranchers, in turn, sell the vouchers to hunters for thousands of dollars. This program, which has existed for over 10 years, takes hunting opportunity away from many residents who cannot afford the private licences, and forces them to jam the draw system for access to hunts on public land—hence the 10 to 20 year waiting periods.

Right of Access
Fundamentally, all this boils down to the last tenet in the North American model: the right of all citizens to have equal access to wildlife. In other words, our wildlife should not be commodified and subjected to economic models like supply and demand. If landowners must be compensated to maintain wildlife habitat, it should be done under programs financed by taxpayers or all users through licence fees. Are you willing to pay more for a licence if the money is directed toward ensuring adequate hunting opportunity on private land while securing quality wildlife habitat on that land? Or are you willing to let supply and demand take its course and dictate what you will pay to hunt or fish?

www.donmeredith.ca

Interested in reading an award-winning outdoor adventure novel? Check out  The Search for Grizzly One and Dog Runner.

Woodcraft

[Note: The following was first published in the December 2012 Alberta Outdoorsmen.]

Copyright © 2013 Don H. Meredith

It was a simple question that went something like: “Where can I go to get an axe sharpened?” I stumbled across it while browsing the Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum message board. It caught my eye because it would never occur to me to go elsewhere to sharpen an axe; I would just do it myself—a skill I learned as a young boy, many decades ago now. As far as I was concerned, the question should have been “How do I sharpen an axe?”—a question easily answered by at least some of the more than 36,000 members of the forum.

However, the first response to the question was indeed to provide the name of a business that would sharpen an axe. Further down the thread of messages, someone finally mentioned that perhaps the person should invest in a mill file and do the sharpening himself. Nonetheless, the person asking the question later reported that he was now standing in line at a shop about to pay $14 to get his axe sharpened. It was not long before another message was posted mentioning that the fellow could buy a new axe for that price.

Fire-making materials I include in my survival kit: some flint wedged into a small wooden handle, a piece of steel saw blade, some cotton and a candle.

I guess I have always assumed that anyone interested in being out of doors would learn the skills needed to enjoy the outdoors safely. At least that is how I was brought up. On second thought, however, I also realize that the image of the typical outdoors person has changed over the years. Nowadays, the image appears more related to how much gear and technology we own as opposed to the skills we have acquired for living in and using the great outdoors.

Nevertheless, as any experienced woodsman will tell you, the only thing you can truly rely upon in the woods is yourself. When push comes to shove with regard to surviving a calamity, it’s your knowledge and skill with the tools you are carrying with you that will make all the difference.

Totin’ Chip
I was very lucky as a boy. My father ensured that both my brother and I joined the local Boy Scout troop; and he joined as an adult leader. Through his efforts and those of other parents, the troop became one of the most active in our region. My dad had been a scout when he was a boy in rural Texas and thought the scouts would be the best way to teach his urban sons outdoor skills and share his love for the outdoors.

Now, when you get a bunch of 11 to 14 year-old boys together on a camping trip, things can go awry quickly. Puberty is setting in and each boy is trying to figure out his place in the world. Throw some sharp tools in the mix and you have a recipe for disaster unless some rules are established and followed. One such rule was the issuing of a “Totin’ Chip”—a card that identified the scout carrying it as a responsible user of a knife, axe and saw. No one could use such tools without the card. It was not issued until the scout had demonstrated he could safely handle and maintain these tools, including how to sharpen them. If a scout was caught by one of the leaders playing with or otherwise misusing a tool, he had to present his card and the leader would cut a corner off it. Three corners gone, the card was confiscated and the boy had to retake the course.

It might sound like a regimented way of doing business, but the Totin’ Chip was popular with both boys and leaders (and still is). New scouts eagerly lined up to take the course every time it was offered and carried their chips with pride. The result was few accidents with sharp tools and scouts with self confidence about what they could do.

I’m not suggesting a Totin’ Chip-like program be instituted outside the Boy Scouts. I am merely using it as an example of how important knowing woodcraft skills should be to the outdoors person. You don’t need a program to learn these skills. They are easily taught one-on-one.

Woodcraft covers many outdoor skills from how to make a camp, through building a fire, travelling light in the woods, to the safe use and maintenance of tools. For the purpose of this column, I’ll just look at two groups of these skills that are fundamental to survival.

Sharpening

A whetstone and a little oil or water is all you need to keep a knife sharp.

Like many outdoors people, I take pride in having my knives and axes in top shape. Sharpening a knife or axe is quite easy and can be learned from a book, the web or a friend. For a knife, all you need is a whetstone and some light oil or water. Of course, there are some fancy gadgets on the market that will keep the angle of the bevel just right. But for sharpening a knife in camp or in the field, a whetstone does the job just fine.

A mill file and properly positioned axe head to sharpen an axe.

For an axe, a mill file works quite well, especially in camp. I prefer to file down from the edge while others prefer to file toward it. Both do the same job. Purists would have you finish the job with a whetstone, but I think that’s a bit much for this tool. The key is setting up the axe-head so it is held steadily while filing. Of course, if you have a grinder in your shop, it will do the job quickly; but there is some discussion on the web about the grinder heating the edge too much and changing the metal’s temper. I’m no metallurgist but grinding in short bursts should reduce the risk of increasing the temperature of the metal too much. A grinder works best on a severely damaged edge where much metal will have to be removed.

Fire Starting

Can you build and start a fire from scratch?

Although there are many ways to easily start a fire these days, one must always keep in mind that there could come a time when you will have to make one from scratch without access to petroleum accelerants. If you get lost, injured or are otherwise forced to spend the night away from camp, you will want a fire. What you carry in your pack or on your person becomes essential. Prepared outdoors people carry a small survival kit that includes matches and perhaps a flint and steel set in case the matches fail (it happens). However, do you know how to properly build a fire from scratch? Better yet, have you made a fire from scratch and have the confidence to do it again? As with sharpening and other skills, safety of yourself and others is always paramount.

Resources
The best way to learn about woodcraft fundamentals is to take a course. The Alberta Conservation and Hunter Education Program includes sections on woodcraft and is available online and from local fish and game clubs. Many outdoor youth groups, such as Scouts Canada and Junior Forest Wardens, also provide courses. Much information can be found in books and web sites. Once you learn what must be done, you must practice every chance you get so the skill becomes a part of who you are.

www.donmeredith.ca

Interested in reading an award-winning outdoor adventure novel? Check out  The Search for Grizzly One and Dog Runner.

The Radio Buck

[Note: The following was first published in the November 2012 Alberta Outdoorsmen.]

Copyright © 2012 Don H. Meredith

“Don,” crackled the walkie-talkie in my pocket, “there’s a muley buck just crossing the fence west of you. I think you can intercept him if you move that way.”

“On it,” I replied, rising from where I was sitting on top of a ridge overlooking a hilly pasture dotted with copses of wind-blown poplar. I cautiously moved southwest through the thin layer of snow to the next line of trees where I figured I could get a good look at the buck. On checking further west along the ridge I just left, I saw the sitting image of my camouflaged correspondent, Myles Radford. He was looking west through binoculars. I hastened to the trees.

The open country in eastern Alberta is ideal for the use of walkie-talkies.

I was in eastern Alberta with Myles and his father, Duane Radford. I had the only antlered mule deer tag and Myles and Duane were hunting white-tails. It was mid-November and it was obvious the deer populations had taken a big hit during the previous winter. Although we saw some deer, none of us had connected and this was the last day of our week-long trip. If I was to fill my tag, it had to be today.

When only one person in a group of hunters has a tag for a particular species, often that individual doesn’t see that animal but his partners do. That’s what happened a couple of days earlier, when the three of us were well away from each other. Duane sat down to watch over a couple of pieces of bush only to see a large 4×4 mule deer buck walk right up to him and pass him by. He informed me by walkie-talkie of the event, and I set out to join him, hear the story and try to track the buck, but to no avail. The buck had covered too much ground during the time it took me to get there. However, the event reinforced the reason why we were packing walkie-talkies—passing information about where the deer were.

Electronics have permeated every aspect of our lives, from how we do our work to our leisure activities. Hunters can carry a lot of electronics in relatively small packages, including small digital cameras, portable global positioning systems and cell phones,. Indeed, you can find all three functions in some so-called smart phones. However, all of these instruments have their limitations. All require charged batteries that need to be kept at least somewhat warm to function. Cell phones and GPS units must have access to certain radio signals that aren’t always available. That’s why outdoors people should not solely rely on these devices. Use of a map and compass and an alternate way of communicating with your partners is often necessary.

Today’s walkie-talkies are packed with power and features, while fitting into a shirt pocket.

Walkie-talkies have been around at least since the Second World War. They are portable radio devices that send and receive signals on the same frequency or channel. Therefore, you cannot speak and hear at the same time as you can over a telephone. Like all electronics, they have become progressively smaller over the years, developing from large cumbersome devices to very small units that can easily fit in a pocket. There are several types of units, from very sophisticated ones used by the military and emergency responders requiring specialized frequencies and controls, through units used by amateur radio enthusiasts that require a licence to operate, to personal-use devices that can be used in home and recreational settings. The latter devices do not require a licence to operate and use special frequencies set aside by the government for public use. It is these personal-use devices that are most commonly used by outdoors people.

Personal-use devices range from so-called “toys”, designed for use by children, to rugged models with long ranges and special features. Toy walkie-talkies have low power, very short ranges and no channel selection. Higher end models have rechargeable batteries, a selection of channels, and privacy codes that block out background noises.

Range
Most personal-use walkie-talkies transmit ultra-high-frequency (UHF) radio waves that generally travel on a “line-of-sight” course between correspondents. So, ridges, buildings, and thick stands of trees can limit their range. Generally speaking, the more expensive the unit, the higher the power and the longer the advertised range. However, one of the biggest complaints about these devices is that the advertised range often does not match reality. Typically, the highest rated walkie-talkies (brands: Cobra, Midland, Motorola, Uniden), have advertised ranges from 16 to 30 km (10 to 19 mi.). Those ranges are tested under ideal conditions without obstructions between the units. However, the advertised ranges do provide figures to compare the power of models.

Channels
One of the most convenient features of the high-end models is the ability to select among a variety of channels or separated divisions of the frequency spectrum. The channels allow groups of users to select channels that are not being used by other groups. Some models have channel scan features that help select the best channel for clarity.

Message Protocol
Unlike amateur radio, walkie-talkie correspondence does not have agreed protocols outlining ways to properly transmit messages. Most transmissions are just the simple  passage of information. However, if the group of users is large or you are competing with other groups on the same channel, an agreed protocol among the members of the group might be necessary to prevent misunderstandings. Typically, when wishing to contact a group member, a user begins with the recipient’s name followed by the sender’s name, e.g., “Bill from Joe” or just “Bill, Joe”. When finished transmitting it is customary to say “over” to indicate the stop in your transmission so the receiver can reply. When ending a conversation, a simple “out” is sufficient, e.g. “Joe out.” If other groups are using your channel, common courtesy should apply. Wait for the other group to finish its conversation before beginning yours. And remember, if you can hear them, they can hear you.

The author and Myles Radford with their ‘radio’ buck

Fortunately, our group of three on that November day last year was not competing with others on our channel of choice. So, we could be informal.

When I arrived at the line of trees I paused to look over the pasture ahead of me, but didn’t see the deer. “It’s gone back north,” Myles informed me over the radio, “but it seems to be following a scent, and is now coming back east. Head north.”

I slipped out of the tree cover into a brush covered swale, keeping my eye on a line of trees coming from the northwest. Then I saw a set of antlers moving on the far side of those wind-bent trees. I kneeled down in the snow and froze my position behind a bush, hoping my camouflage would obscure my presence. The buck came around the last tree and paused not 50 metres away, almost as if he detected my presence but couldn’t figure out what I was. I slowly raised my rifle and squared the cross-hairs behind the deer’s right shoulder. Just as the deer decided to turn away, I fired. The deer staggered and then took off north. I found him about 10 minutes later piled up in small group of poplars. The radio buck was down. Although I shot him, it was definitely a group effort enhanced by our use of walkie-talkies.

www.donmeredith.ca

Interested in reading an award-winning outdoor adventure novel? Check out  The Search for Grizzly One and Dog Runner.

Give a Book for Christmas

If you have young people on your gift list, please consider my two, award winning novels, The Search for Grizzly One and Dog Runner. You can purchase signed copies of my  adventure novels for $7.00 (Cdn or US) each plus shipping. This price is well below my cost but it is time for me to purge the inventory and move on. So, if you have a young person (~12 to 16 year+) on your gift list that might be interested in such stories, please give my novels a look.

The Search for Grizzly One, is about a teenager searching for his lost grandfather in northern Alberta.

“…a cracking good adventure story set in Canada’s North…some of the best writing about northern flying and wilderness life that I have ever encountered” — Merna Summers, Amazon.ca review.

Dog Runner is about a teenager torn between two cultures in northern Alberta. In order to save his dog team, Jim must enter a grueling sled dog race.

“Each of the dogs has a distinct, believable personality, and human and animal interactions ring true to life. Dog Runner is a special book.” — Calgary Herald

To order a signed copy of either or both books, please go to the Signed Books page on my web site.

Thank you!

www.donmeredith.ca