‘Open Spaces’ Struggles to Its Feet

It was an interesting presentation for a government minister to make at the Alberta Fish and Game Association’s annual conference in Edmonton last Friday. Just before the minister’s sponsored lunch, Ted Morton made the requisite speech to the delegates that is traditional for the minister of the day. The speech was reasonably short and covered his department’s accomplishments and plans for the future, as is normal fare for such a speech. What was remarkable was what occurred after lunch. He booked a couple of hours to make a presentation about the resurrection of his Open Spaces program that was unanimously rejected by the AFGA conference last year, also in Edmonton (see my blog entry, ‘Open Spaces’ Stumbles). That was the first time I had seen a minister take a significant portion of an AFGA conference to try to sell a program.

Now, to be fair, the Minister had dropped the most offensive part of the original Open Spaces proposal, that of allowing landowners to sell hunting tags and pocket a portion of the revenue. Instead, he was now promoting the less offensive part that would pay landowners for creating and maintaining habitat and allowing hunters access to the wild game on their land, or RAMP, the Recreational Access Management Program.

This he addressed by bringing to the AFGA conference, at I’m sure some considerable expense, a small platoon of people from Montana to explain the Block program in that State that RAMP is based on. The panel of presenters included the coordinator of Block, a landowner participant, a resident hunter/angler who uses Block property, and an Alberta supporter of RAMP who has used Block property when he visited Montana as a non-resident hunter. They each made well thought out presentations that were quite impressive. Then the coordinator for RAMP described the three-year pilot program in Alberta that apparently is going ahead despite what the delegates might think and indeed decide.

RAMP will compensate and assist volunteer landowners in Wildlife Management Units (WMUs) 108 and 300 (in southern Alberta) in developing access management plans to allow hunters/anglers on their lands. Landowners will be compensated based on the quality of habitat and the access allowed. Compensation payments will be a maximum of $10 per day per user to a maximum of $2,000 to $10,000 per year per landowner, depending on the amount of land available for access. Such compensation could be in the form of goods and services to enhance habitat or cash.

Where will the money come from? The three-year pilot program will be financed out of the department’s budget. When asked how he planned to fund the program in the future if the pilot was successful (however that will be determined), the Minister had a convoluted answer bringing in the Land Use Framework that is also just getting underway. Apparently, the local LUF Advisory Council (not yet established) would have to build payments to landowners into their program to conserve wildlife habitat, if that is indeed a priority for that particular council.

And for me that is the problem. Yes, there is a problem gaining access to publicly owned fish and wildlife on private land, and yes, it is particularly acute in southern Alberta where most land is held privately. But is the solution to pay landowners for such access? And who will pay?

In North America, and especially in Alberta, wildlife is considered to be a public resource that the public should not have to pay to access. Paying landowners to gain access is paid hunting and fishing, whether that access is paid by the user or the government (i.e., users’ tax dollars). To my mind, if this program expands and the demand for financing increases, I cannot see how hunters and anglers can avoid eventually paying for this access out of their pockets. And fundamentally, that is why the AFGA,  at its conference on the day following the RAMP presentation, passed a motion continuing its previous rejection of Open Spaces, including RAMP.

However, the problem still remains without a solution. A proactive minister, with a genuine interest in his job, has attempted to find one, but he neglected to gain the support of the province’s primary conservation organization, or include it in the planning process where he would have learned about the passion behind this issue. That’s too bad, because an opportunity may have been lost. While we watch to see how long it takes RAMP to either succeed or fail (under its own weight), perhaps its time to develop an alternate plan to include private landowners in the conservation of fish and wildlife habitat that includes public access.

So, what’s wrong with that?

www.donmeredith.ca

Advertisements

About Don Meredith

I am a writer and biologist living in Alberta, Canada. I write a monthly column for the Alberta Outdoorsmen magazine.
This entry was posted in Alberta, Fishing, Wildlife and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to ‘Open Spaces’ Struggles to Its Feet

  1. Mark says:

    I agree that the handling of this program right from the start was horrible and started with what could only be considered the worst possible idea for such a program in Alberta (HFH). So to start if these are the ideas that come forward from what is considered to be one of our best SRD ministers I have to question either his motives or his true nature toward hunting and game management in this province. The consensus of the AFGA delegates is completely opposed yet he clings to this idea of Open Spaces being the answer, how can there be such a divergence in thought when the minister continually reminds us that he too is a sportsman and concerned about these issues.

    Next what are the issues?
    Mr. Meredith stated that “…the problem still remains without a solution.” The first question that has to be answered is “What is the problem”? Access is the 800 lb gorrilla in the room but there is a continual debate on whether it is actual or percieved. My personal experiences are that it is “percieved” which hardly makes it a scientific fact, yet evidence of access being more difficult to obtain now than in the past by others is just as unsubstantiated. As with the debate of Grizzly Bear numbers a real effort has to be initiated to understand what exactly the problem is and if one even exists, real base line data has to be put together and not just a survey of disgruntel and dissassociated past hunters.

    Another of the concerns is the drop in hunter numbers. The evidence suggests that this is not a unique problem to Alberta. Hunter numbers across North America are declining including in states like Montana. Given this, would it not suggest that programs like Open Spaces and Block Management are not the solution and that we are focusing on the issue of declining hunters by suggesting that one simple problem “access” if addressed would solve the problem. I’m more inclined to suspect that the decline in hunting numbers is something much less tangible but something we all experience in our day to day lives. Everything has to be immediate because we just don’t have the time we used to have. That is not how hunting works. Large urban centers make it difficult for young intrepid explores to even find nature. As a kid I just had to walk outside and there was nature and all the people in the small town I call home could do the same. In the big cities and I would include Grand Prairie, Red Deer, Lethbridge, and Medicine Hat that ability to just walk into nature is dissappearing so what is replacing it. Sadly, it is Ibox, Ninetendo, and WII. It is a life style shift and not landowner sentiment that has changed. More demand on a young persons time to be texting friends or getting the next high score has left them disinterested. If the imprint of nature is skipped in youth it is virtually lost in maturity. This then would suggest that parents have to be given a responsibility to get there childern out in nature, but how. My suggestion is to work on education, Math is manditory, Science is manditory why can’t nature, conservation and ethics be manditory. Follow this by reinforcing the basic tenents that have worked up until now. First re-establish landowners rights to control access and beef up enforcement of the rules. Make the penelties for breaking them appropriate and just. Second, make sure that the basic tenent that wildlife is a public trust is protected in the wildlife act and perhaps re stated in the hunting heritage act. Now, come up with appropriate programs with regards to problem wildlife and facilitate hunter landowner relations that benefit the wildlife management in any given unit. Give back the power to the wildlife biologists and mangers and keep the beurocrats behind there desks in Edmonton and not allow them to interfere.

    Up until now I believe the minister has done a grave injustice to hunters and to landowners, he is perfecting the political maneauvor of splitting the two groups that have got to come together on this and it will be to the detriment of all outdoors people and landowners and to the benefit of political favortism.

    MV

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s