junko
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by junko on Dec 8, 2014 22:49:17 GMT -4
This is a bit long but please follow it and offer input.
Read the arguing on the other less tolerant NS hunting site, I had a thought. What if NS changed the law over night that all private land was off limits to hunting? How would that impact the deer herd?
I did some quick research (take these number with a grain of salt):
Percent Crown Land per Province Newfoundland/Labrador 95% Nova Scotia 24% PEI 10% New Brunswick 48% Quebec 92% Ontario 77% Manitoba 95% Saskatchewan 90% Albert 60% British Columbia 94%
So, next to PEI we have a considerable amount of private land compared to all of the other provinces. New Brunswick has twice as much crown land.
JDI and Bowater control a large portion and the rest is probably owned by 20% of our population. Some of the crown land is off limits to hunters as well because of wildlife preserves.
So here's the big question: if that law went into effect, how would DNR ever be able to manage the deer herd?
If man is not a factor in the equation nothing would change. If we are however, there are larger implications.
Farmers are already complaining about deer numbers. Now suddenly the vast majority of hunters are restricted to crown land. Who's controlling the population on private lands?
I'll give you my outlook:
Deer numbers will increase in private land areas. Hunters with/on private land will be very happy. Farmers, citizens with gardens, and citizens driving in heavy deer areas won't be so happy.
As someone charged with controlling the numbers of these animals and fielding the complaints, what do you do? Well, as we've seen in many other locations there is the obvious answer. A controlled cull. The government won't care about what deer are culled or where. Your private land won't be private anymore. The deer's sex might count, but their health? Not even a bit. A button buck is a male just like a 10 point. Hell, they both might be shot in the spring when it won't even be a consideration. For population control they'd likely target does, so that might be a bonus.
When it comes to the above situation, how much sway do you think deer hunters will have? Do you think we'll have over 10 thousand licenses sold when the majority of hunters are no longer able to legally hunt?
I'd like to think that the non-hunters with land would consider the consequences of deer overpopulating and starving, but I think that because the deer would die quietly out of view it would never be an issue. They will only ever look as far as their backyard and if a deer dropped dead there they'd blame it on a disease or predator.
My stance is that such a change would effectively kill hunting as pass time in this province. It would hit this province harder than the firearm registry. License sales would plummet and game animal management for the province would become a measure of trying to reduce crop/property damage.
So does anyone else have a thought? What if our DNR suddenly had zero control over 75% of the deer herd? Keep in mind the lost income from small game/trapping licenses.
|
|
|
Post by mwo on Dec 9, 2014 4:43:22 GMT -4
Has your Crown land percentages accounted for Bowater lands, now Crown in NS as of last year? How much of that "Private" land holding is actually major Forest Companies holdings, not ma and pa's woodlot?
As well, not to get into this endless circle, you suggest who will control the Deer numbers, if these lands became actually private lands? I will ask you this in turn, who controls all the other provinces populations for the same issue? NS is the only province with a PPA, while each and every other province has trespassing laws, with teeth. Ironically, all provinces from PQ -West have fantastic Hunting and Fishing. So, IMO, Trespassing laws, with permission, obviously work elsewhere, why do you suspect that would not be the case here?
|
|
junko
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by junko on Dec 9, 2014 10:01:53 GMT -4
I don't know, my number comes from DNR's website: novascotia.ca/natr/land/faq.aspI also didn't account for the fact that some of that land is not huntable. Parks, wildlife preserves, not proper shooting distances, etc. The government is allowing forestry operations on half of the newly acquire Bowater lands so they'd be off limits as well. I'm not sure how ma and pa's woodlot matters in this discussion. You're not allowed to hunt on active woodlots. In other areas these issues can be easily be handled with nuisance permits and DNR being able to use hunter harvest as a tool. Look at the percentage of crown land that the provinces west of PQ have. It's not an apples to apples comparison at all. If you can't find a place to hunt in a province that's over 70% crown land you have bigger issues. Next to PEI we are also the most densely populated province so that doesn't help matters. My concern is that such a change would effectively kill hunting in the province. Maybe not outright kill, but push hunter number so low that we effectively cease to exist in the eyes of the government.
|
|
|
Post by mwo on Dec 9, 2014 10:39:22 GMT -4
I think you missed my point, or perhaps i communicated it unclearly. I think you will find that our Crown land percentile is much higher than the info you have extracted from the DNR site. Bowater lands were of significant size. What I mean by private woodlot owners ship was that I see no real need to have government dictatorship stating that a landowner is not able to regulate who and when someone can use that same landowner’s land. If there ever was a law in NS, where signage and trespass laws had teeth, I doubt very much that it would affect many hunters, as most already hunt either Forest Company lands or Crown lands. Those that do not, are hunting in most cases, lands of Friends and families. At the end of the day Ma and Pa woodlots are really not big in the equation, thus I see no reason why they should not, if they wish, be able to post their lands with support of the law. Some claim that some landowners are attempting to create private preserves, take ownership of the wildlife for example, I certainly see it differently. In fact, this is my opinion only, Foodplottings has already essentially created private preserves. Go sit on Pete’s Plots for example, Mid Nov, see what happens. LOL Couple years back Pete had quite an issue with an adjacent hunter, Pete took it off line. LOL Regardless I see both sides of this, I hunt and own land. Respect goes a long ways, so does disrespect.
Conclusion, why can and does it work throughout the rest of Canada. Are we that backwards?
|
|
junko
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by junko on Dec 9, 2014 11:20:14 GMT -4
I think you missed my point, or perhaps i communicated it unclearly. I think you will find that our Crown land percentile is much higher than the info you have extracted from the DNR site. Bowater lands were of significant size. What I mean by private woodlot owners ship was that I see no real need to have government dictatorship stating that a landowner is not able to regulate who and when someone can use that same landowner’s land. If there ever was a law in NS, where signage and trespass laws had teeth, I doubt very much that it would affect many hunters, as most already hunt either Forest Company lands or Crown lands. Those that do not, are hunting in most cases, lands of Friends and families. At the end of the day Ma and Pa woodlots are really not big in the equation, thus I see no reason why they should not, if they wish, be able to post their lands with support of the law. Some claim that some landowners are attempting to create private preserves, take ownership of the wildlife for example, I certainly see it differently. In fact, this is my opinion only, Foodplottings has already essentially created private preserves. Go sit on Pete’s Plots for example, Mid Nov, see what happens. LOL Couple years back Pete had quite an issue with an adjacent hunter, Pete took it off line. LOL Regardless I see both sides of this, I hunt and own land. Respect goes a long ways, so does disrespect. Conclusion, why can and does it work throughout the rest of Canada. Are we that backwards? I don't know about much higher. If DNR did not factor that into their number and the purchase you're referring to is the half million acres, that's an increase of 4%. Again, half of that will be set aside for forestry operations. If the law changes as proposed in the current bill by Chuck Porter, forest companies and absentee landowners will have just as much a right to post their land as anyone else. Maybe I don't understand what you mean by ma and pa woodlots. Active woodlots can already be posted. I also see a system that could be rife with abuse. Who's to say the actual landowner posted the land? How can you be sure the person asking you to leave is the landowner or an agent of the landowner? I'm not the type to cause a scene. In both cases I would simply move along. Someone abusing the system would count on people doing just that. I own some acreage and a friend raises and releases pheasants on that land. I feel that gives me a bit of insight into the whole wildlife ownership debate. I knew the law before I made the purchase and we know that once a bird is released it's no longer our property. I'll not ashamed to admit it bothers me, but at the same time I understand the spirit of the law and I don't see how hunting could survive in this province without it. My counter to the can and why for the rest of Canada is the vast percentage of crown land hunters have access too. I'm not debating the law, I'm curious what people think the impact of such changes would be.
|
|
|
Post by mwo on Dec 9, 2014 11:41:53 GMT -4
The small woodlot owners that I speak of Ma and Pa are the little 50, 100, 200 acers lots, whether being harvested or not. The arguement will go on forever, until such time as the act/law is changed. We all know that sooner or later it will happen. The amendment to the act, submitted by Chuck Porter, would allow those woodlot owners that are "Posted" as to whom and when access can be given, not much different than agriculural lands now, with the exclusion that those lands need not eevn be posted. All other forest land would still remain unchanged if unposted, have at her. Do you really think it would have much effect on many hunters who already hunt forestry lands and crown lands? Good debate, but enough now from me until the next annual debate starts. I think i know you, your writting is very familiar. LOL
|
|
|
Post by lguthro on Dec 9, 2014 12:23:02 GMT -4
Sorry but im not sure what the topic of discussion is, if i am correct you are stating that if a bill passes a land owner now owns the wildlife on that land? Would that mean that set person can hunt it but not others? please clarify thank you, i am quite interested in deer conservation and how crown property is affected by leasing too forestry companies and the control they have of that land
thanks
|
|
|
Post by cochise on Dec 9, 2014 12:38:36 GMT -4
Sorry but im not sure what the topic of discussion is, if i am correct you are stating that if a bill passes a land owner now owns the wildlife on that land? Would that mean that set person can hunt it but not others? please clarify thank you, i am quite interested in deer conservation and how crown property is affected by leasing too forestry companies and the control they have of that land thanks No, Luke...He wouldn't own the wildlife, but he would own the exclusive right to the access to that wildlife while on his property. Two different things under the law...but the same result. If they were to be granted ownership?...Then they would have to accept all the liabilities of that wildlife too (such as crop / property / vehicle damage), and they don't want that. As for the Bill passing... I would be highly surprised if it does, and not just because of Mr. Porter's political affiliation. It is poorly thought out, steps on actual "rights" of Nova Scotians, which is indicative of the quality of legislator we are saddled with these days. If I was to hazard a guess, it is so poorly written, I figure it was tabled just to get a constituent off of his back.
|
|
junko
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by junko on Dec 9, 2014 12:57:18 GMT -4
The small woodlot owners that I speak of Ma and Pa are the little 50, 100, 200 acers lots, whether being harvested or not. The arguement will go on forever, until such time as the act/law is changed. We all know that sooner or later it will happen. The amendment to the act, submitted by Chuck Porter, would allow those woodlot owners that are "Posted" as to whom and when access can be given, not much different than agriculural lands now, with the exclusion that those lands need not eevn be posted. All other forest land would still remain unchanged if unposted, have at her. Do you really think it would have much effect on many hunters who already hunt forestry lands and crown lands? Good debate, but enough now from me until the next annual debate starts. I think i know you, your writting is very familiar. LOL Darn I just typed a response and hit the backspace key and it all went away. I think this is tongue in cheek but it's an interesting take on the situation: novascotiahunting.com/forums/index.php?/topic/31569-no-hunting-trepassing-or-fishing-sign/#entry383857
|
|
junko
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by junko on Dec 9, 2014 13:04:03 GMT -4
Sorry but im not sure what the topic of discussion is, if i am correct you are stating that if a bill passes a land owner now owns the wildlife on that land? Would that mean that set person can hunt it but not others? please clarify thank you, i am quite interested in deer conservation and how crown property is affected by leasing too forestry companies and the control they have of that land thanks No, Luke...He wouldn't own the wildlife, but he would own the exclusive right to the access to that wildlife while on his property. Two different things under the law...but the same result. If they were to be granted ownership?...Then they would have to accept all the liabilities of that wildlife too (such as crop / property / vehicle damage), and they don't want that. As for the Bill passing... I would be highly surprised if it does, and not just because of Mr. Porter's political affiliation. It is poorly thought out, steps on actual "rights" of Nova Scotians, which is indicative of the quality of legislator we are saddled with these days. If I was to hazard a guess, it is so poorly written, I figure it was tabled just to get a constituent off of his back. I tried to reply to mwo, but it disappeared on me. The bill didn't make it past the 1st reading. My concern with the law is that it could act as wedge to enable further restrictions by special interest groups. Yes, hunters as of now can hunt on land owned by JDI and Bowater but I don't doubt that they had an opportunity to change ANY law to their advantage they'd take it and wouldn't give hunters a second thought.
|
|
|
Post by cochise on Dec 9, 2014 13:19:01 GMT -4
junko, When you consider those numbers, mere %'s do not really tell the entire story. New Brunswick's Crown Lands, as example, are larger in acreage (or darn close) than all of Nova Scotia.
As for deer management?...The only means of deer management (other than a legislated cull) available to the DNR is hunting. If they no longer control the hunting? They cannot possibly control the herd. To cede the access to the herd to private entities and individuals, then they have lost control.
Most of our Crown Lands are landlocked...their boundaries and points of access are controlled by private interests. More than 50% of what we grew up knowing as Crown Land is in the process of being converted to Protected Wilderness Area, Nature Reserve, or Park Land. Wilderness Areas allow hunting (on foot only, and no treestands), Nature Reserves and Park Lands do not allow any hunting (in fact, you aren't even allowed to walk in a Nature Reserve without a permit.) There is already talk of shutting down parts of the Mersey lands, and limiting access to others. Is it realistic to expect people from Colchester, Cumberland, Guysborough, Antigonish, Pictou, Inverness, Cape Breton, Richmond, and Victoria counties to travel all the way to Lunenburg county in hopes of finding a spot to hunt? I, personally, don't think so, and if that is all that is afforded them, then, yes, our hunter numbers will suffer immensely. Hell...in my lifetime I've seen greater than a 50% decline in hunter's numbers (closer to 60%), and I can't begin to tell you how many of the 'oldtimers' I knew who gave it up because their places to hunt were gone or newly posted.
signs, signs Everywhere there's signs.
The future of hunting in this province is bleak. When you're drowning and in the horror of the moment someone passes you a rope...you best be hopin' that it's not an anchor at the other end.
|
|
junko
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by junko on Dec 9, 2014 13:26:49 GMT -4
Sorry but im not sure what the topic of discussion is, if i am correct you are stating that if a bill passes a land owner now owns the wildlife on that land? Would that mean that set person can hunt it but not others? please clarify thank you, i am quite interested in deer conservation and how crown property is affected by leasing too forestry companies and the control they have of that land thanks I probably should have been more specific but imagine a bill passes that would require you to have written permission to hunt on private land, posted or not. I'm taking it to this extreme because I feel this is where we'd end up. I don't think many landowners would be happy to have to survey hundreds of acres and post signage every 100 feet to keep hunters off of their land. My question is, how do you think such a change would impact deer hunting and deer management in NS? My thinking is that DNR would no longer be able to count on hunters as management tool and would have to resort to alternative means that would not necessarily be in hunters best interest. In fact I think there will so few hunters left that no one in government will bother considering our best interest in anything. In the post I linked Bob Leblanc cautioned people to be careful what they wished for. I've taken their wish to it's conclusion and I'm trying to imagine how things would play out. I've taken my view to the extreme because that's more fun for me, but I'd love to hear other's thoughts on it.
|
|
junko
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by junko on Dec 9, 2014 13:37:38 GMT -4
junko, When you consider those numbers, mere %'s do not really tell the entire story. New Brunswick's Crown Lands, as example, are larger in acreage (or darn close) than all of Nova Scotia. As for deer management?...The only means of deer management (other than a legislated cull) available to the DNR is hunting. If they no longer control the hunting? They cannot possibly control the herd. To cede the access to the herd to private entities and individuals, then they have lost control. Most of our Crown Lands are landlocked...their boundaries and points of access are controlled by private interests. More than 50% of what we grew up knowing as Crown Land is in the process of being converted to Protected Wilderness Area, Nature Reserve, or Park Land. Wilderness Areas allow hunting (on foot only, and no treestands), Nature Reserves and Park Lands do not allow any hunting (in fact, you aren't even allowed to walk in a Nature Reserve without a permit.) There is already talk of shutting down parts of the Mersey lands, and limiting access to others. Is it realistic to expect people from Colchester, Cumberland, Guysborough, Antigonish, Pictou, Inverness, Cape Breton, Richmond, and Victoria counties to travel all the way to Lunenburg county in hopes of finding a spot to hunt? I, personally, don't think so, and if that is all that is afforded them, then, yes, our hunter numbers will suffer immensely. Hell...in my lifetime I've seen greater than a 50% decline in hunter's numbers (closer to 60%), and I can't begin to tell you how many of the 'oldtimers' I knew who gave it up because their places to hunt were gone or newly posted. signs, signs Everywhere there's signs. The future of hunting in this province is bleak. When you're drowning and in the horror of the moment someone passes you a rope...you best be hopin' that it's not an anchor at the other end. I agree 100%. It would be a very interesting exercise to calculate how much of our crown land you can legally hunt. The same holds true for private land. I can buy 20 acres and not be able to legally hunt 1 inch of it if I can't meet distance requirements and my neighbour's won't give me their blessing. I wonder if there's a hiking website for NS where hikers argue about this law.
|
|
|
Post by lguthro on Dec 9, 2014 14:18:02 GMT -4
2/3 stands are currently on private land, my main stand is surrounded by all crown land that is no taped off for skidder trails to be cut. I am sure no hunting in work areas signs will be posted. If this law were to pass you can count on at least a 50% instant drop in the numbers of hunters in this province. Good for deer conservation bad for the Motor Vehicles. A motion like this should never make it passed being tabled. You can not possible come up with enough logical and factual information for a bill or motion to pass.
|
|
junko
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by junko on Dec 9, 2014 14:33:59 GMT -4
Since you mentioned vehicle collisions. Did anyone see the harvest statistics for New Brunswick? They include highway and rail collisions in their stats. Last year it was around 2,500 deer. That number blew my socks off. That's 30% of their annual harvest. And that's just reported. And they have moose fencing that must help keep the numbers a little lower.
I'd love/hate to see a number for Nova Scotia.
|
|
|
Post by cochise on Dec 9, 2014 15:02:54 GMT -4
...It would be a very interesting exercise to calculate how much of our crown land you can legally hunt... As part of your calculation, you will also want to consider what, if any, huntable species those Crown Lands hold (to make it relevant). As example, Sable Island is not a deer or grouse or rabbit or pheasant or moose or bear hunting mecca, as far as I know...and if you're not a commercial fisherman, all the seals are off limits, too.
|
|
|
Post by lguthro on Dec 9, 2014 15:27:24 GMT -4
^Very True! Statics in Nova Scotia would be over whelming i see almost a new one everyday travelling the 102 and the 118 into work so that at least 365
|
|