I only fly fish but want everyone to enjoy the wild without some self righteous snob telling them how they should do it.

Thanks. I understand that; however, I question if the ACA can legally specify the weapons used to hunt during an open season, assuming access to hunt is granted. Hunting is the activity. The weapon is only the tool.

No different then setting a "foot access only" provision. ATV"s may be legal for use in that area, but not authorized for use on the property by order of the landowner. In this circumstance, firearm use is not authorized by the landowner.

The landowner can say "red boots" are not authorized on the land. So if a person is found wearing red boots on the property, they could be charged with trespassing.

I love hunting foot access only properties. However, people still go on them with Atv’s and snowmobiles. Had a guy last year ride his snow mobile right through the middle of the property I was hunting. Posted all the way around with “foot access only” signs on the fence. As I said earlier in this thread. Ethics are going to vary between hunters. I’m unaware if this person was physically handicapped or not. But they definitely had the machine doctored up to run quiet, as the only thing I heard was the snow crunching under the weight of the snowmobile. Could not hear the exhaust like on the average snow machine. The problem is, people do what they want, and a lot of the times they get away with it!

Spoke to fish and wildlife one time after calling the RAP hotline, there was someone on another foot access only property that I wanted to hunt. They went out there with their quad. Quad tracks coming off of a trailer, and they cut the fence right at the spot that was holding the sign that said “foot access only, no motorized vehicles allowed”. F&W said he couldn’t do anything, because there was an atv/snowmobile club that operated in the area as well. I found that pretty ridiculous. If you can clearly disregard the rules set in place, with zero repercussions, what’s going to stop people from doing things like this more often??

The Wildlife Act speaks only to the act of hunting generally and the discharge of firearms, which bows are not. The Petty Trespass Act speaks only to entry without permission and immediately complying with a request to leave by a landowner. I believe that request could be made for any reason, including the wearing of red boots. The only chargeable offences identified are entry without permission and not leaving when asked.

So, if I interpret those acts correctly, the ACA can request hunting by bow only, but in the absence of a prohibition against firearms discharge at the place in question, can not have someone charged under either act if found hunting with a firearm. However, they can request anyone not complying with their rules to leave.

All that said, while it’s important to know where the law starts and ends, it’s more important to do what’s right. If the landowner wants no red boots or no guns, then respect their rules if you want to enjoy the privilege of access.

Given your theory how is anyone ever charged under Section 38 of the Wildlife Act?

Farmer = ACA in this case

Lets say a Farmer can hunt with a rifle on his own property as there is no firearms usage regulation for the area other than the 200 meter rule. Does that mean everyone can now hunt on the property with a rifle? You need to understand that the landowner (ACA) has made it known that on that property hunting with a rifle is not the same as hunting with a bow.

Let's say the ACA was approached by a group which organizes hunts for less fortunate youth, maybe youth with physical limitations. And let's say the site in questions has great trails and access. Do you think that the ACA has the authority to issue that group a 1 time special permission to use firearms at that site and in addition close the site to any other users for that 1 day? You bet they can because they are the landowner.

The only thing a land owner can not do is promote or allow illegal activity on his property. And as long it is not illegal than a land owner can make whatever rules he want concerning access. And if there are rules pertaining to hunting activities (bow, rifle, spear, whatever) then section 38 of the Wildlife Act gives a charge sections for persons hunting on land without permission. And the ACA signage states persons using a rifle do not have permission to hunt that site.

ACA is not a farmer. They are a publicly funded organization that receives the vast majority of it's income from taxes and fees. As a public not for profit org they fall under different guide lines and audit rules.

In a nut shell, their operation and use of public funds is not the same as a farmer or private land owner. You can see clearly on the ACA web site the full disclosure of income and spending. You don't see this on a farmer's face book page.

If the ACA for example decides that all board members should be given new trucks as a thank you for service there could be some serious repercussions ie; removal of funding.

In this case they could in deed decide that no hunters are to wear red boots HOWEVER they could not expect LEOs to enforce their bylaws. I as a tax payer and red boot wearer would have every right to not only question but protest against what I consider to be misuse of funding or authority.

As a member of the ACA they would also be charging someone with being on their own land. The Organization (all members) own the lands, not an individual or even board members. Who exactly at ACA would have the authority to approach an individual and ask them to leave a property. A board member certainly doesn't have the authority of a land owner and I can't even imagine a charge of trespassing holding up in court on land purchased with public funds.

Lots and lots of complaints received. I see people giving and getting equally. Some are calling childish names while others are being little babies. Argue like hell if you so choose, but stop with childish name calling and pettiness. Carry on.

Regardless of the likelihood of being charged in any specific circumstance, I think your perspective is a good one to have. I don’t see much good coming from not following a request to hunt with bows only.

Missing the point....

The ACA are mandated to control and set the rules for usage for the properties under their control.... just like a Farmer or any landowner sets the rules for usage of their property.

The only difference is that the ACA is a publicly funded organization and if you do not agree with their decision or rules you probably have recourse to complain to different levels of government or a regulatory body. But that does change the fact that they can impose rules (in this case limitations to access) and that rules when associated to hunting are enforceable by the Wildlife Act if not adhere to.

Last question before I am out on this one... because this is going nowhere fast.....

What prevents me from building a house or cabin on Crown land in Alberta? I am a Alberta tax payer and resident. Am I not a part owner of the land? Should I not be able to apply for a building permit and build on my "own" land? Building permit? I own the land, why should I even need a building permit?

When you have 3 million owners, I guess you need to have a few house rules to try and keep the peace. There definitely can't be 3 million sets of rules.

You in fact have every right to squat on crown land in Canada. If you can prove that you have been there for a certain amount of time you can still be granted squatter's rights. Officials can have you move along and/or remove any structures before this happens however.

This is the question of why one person is allowed to build a house and another is not because of the use of different tools or materials.

mK2750 do you believe that you should have the ability (right) to services from any organization that receives funding from any level of government

Example: Fred the barber recently came to Canada from war torn area of the world. All Fred knows is how to cut hair. Through help from the community Fred applied for several grants and loans and received some government funding to set up his barber shop.

Do you believe that because Fred’s business was funded in part by your tax dollars that you are a part owner of Fred’s barber shop and are able to use the shop anytime you like.

If Fred registers as a not for profit organization and is continuously funded by tax dollars then he should be under the scrutiny of the public. Members of his not for profit organization should have input into the going ons of the group.

Possibly could have something to do with the residence within the property or close proximity to the highway.

Ok then an organization like DU Canada which is a private not for profit and holds charitable status and over the years has received millions of dollars from all levels of government should allow you access to their hundreds of properties across Canada

They should and do unless extraordinary circumstances prevent them from doing so. There was a detailed discussion about this very topic a few weeks ago involving the use of DU land for grazing.

They already do. Part of DUs charter and mandate is to allow hunting on DU owned lands.

ANYWAY, I spoke with a fine member of the ACA and was given a full and acceptable explanation. He and I agree that restriction of activities is not a practice the ACA wants or should be a part of but in this case it was necessary to secure this important property as part of the purchase agreement.

The legal question remains but I certainly won't be violating the wises of the association given these extraordinary circumstances explained to me.

Thanks for the intelligent and polite discussion. Please go back to what ever it is that you people like to talk about. I apologize for bringing up questions about restrictions on our ability to hunt with firearms and our rights to access lands purchased with our tax dollars. Obviously theses topics are not relevant and have no place on the hunting forum.

Yes their charter, their rules, not mandated by their government funding
A private company (land owner) setting the rules on properties they own or control
Not your right to enter their properties but your privilege by their generosity

Hold on just a minute, DU is almost 100% funded by donations from hunters and a lot of the land they have is donated by hunters. I would never have supported DU all these years if they did not allow hunting on the land, and neither would most other hunters. DU is NOT a private owner, they are a membership group set up for very specific reasons.

I own land, who I let on and under what terms is strictly my call. DU and ACA are not "private" individuals and answer to Boards set up to ensure they meet the mandates they were set up for. To try and equate their holding of land to a simple comparison to private property is far from accurate. If you think it is the same, you don't understand either group properly.

If they have the deed to the land they are no different than you as a private land owner

I am and have been a member of DU Canada for decades and have donated generously to them over the years this doesn’t give me any rights or privileges other than what they as a private company want to give me

Oh by the way I don’t even hunt waterfowl but I believe in most of what DU has done and continues to do

Ducks Unlimited
ducks.org
Ducks Unlimited is an American nonprofit organization 501 dedicated to the conservation of wetlands and associated upland habitats for waterfowl, other wildlife, and people. It has maintained a worldwide membership of about 700,000 since January 2013.

Ducks Unlimited & Hunting
DU was founded by a group of waterfowl hunters more than 75 years ago, and today 90 percent of DU members are hunters.

Through the support of this sportsman constituency, DU has been able to conserve more than 13 million acres of habitat across North America. Learn more.

https://www.ducks.org/hunting

NOT a private corp.

Thank you for verifying the reason behind this rule and providing the information to the forum. (including the members who still won't get it) :sign0087:

Even though you’re provided info about DU in the USA

It as well as DU Canada are private companies funded by members and private and public donations

We have two types of ownership crown (government) and private ( non government) what do you think DU is

This brings another discussion. Should ACA be purchasing "important" land that the seller is putting restrictions on??? Would there not be other land to purchase? After all, the owner should be able to use as they like, to a point. Just a thought, I have no feelings either way.

This is not the definition of private as it refers to business. Private in business refers to the distribution of shares (or the lack there of). Public companies have public share holders, private companies are owned by the founder or direct family etc.

To answer your question there is not two types of ownership, there are many. DU and ACA are are neither Government or private companies.

Please Google search "Not for Profit Companies" "Not for Profit Charities" "Not for Profit Organizations" "Private and Public Companies" "Limited Liability" "Religious Organizations" etc.,etc., and educate yourself on the the different groups that control our world. Each have different rules and guide lines and each answer to different people and/or groups of people.

Even private companies must follow a frame work and are not a dictatorship in the true definition of the word as most would understand it. Not for Profit Organizations operate under strict guide lines in order to maintain their status and tax exemptions. Most elect or appoint a board that answers to the other members of the group and are responsible for insuring the actions of the organization are in keeping with the "mission statement".

The basic mission statement of the ACA can be found here http://www.ab-conservation.com/about/who-we-are/

The basic mission statement of DU can be found here http://www.ducks.org/about-ducks-unl...sion-statement

Yeah, that was part of the original reason for raising the question in the first place. This particular site is a very important piece of habitat and not just another bush quarter. They basically did what they had to do to secure the property and in this case I feel their actions were justified. The person I spoke with said he only knew of one other site where restrictions were imposed as part of a sale or donation agreement and this was not something that ACA wanted.

I'm not calling you a snowflake, but the term snowflake is used to characterize those young adults of a certain generation as being more prone to taking offense and less resilient than previous generations, or as being too emotionally vulnerable to cope with views that challenge their own. Just saying.

Dear MK2750 it’s been 24 hours or so of debating our own opinions, there are some points I agree with you on and others of which you may never convince me.

Continue to be passionate about hunting rights and access for all of us for this I Thank You

By the way my name calling was out of line, thanks for not reciprocating and stooping to my level
Enjoy the rest of the hunting season

Yes I’m tapping out on this one