ACA Land Bow Hunting Only
 

Came across some ACA that has signs saying that the use of firearms is strictly prohibited and it is for bow hunting only.

I found this strange as there is no obvious reason for this restriction.

Has anyone else found land like this and if so was a reason given for restriction to bows only?

Does the ACA even have the authority to make law for certain areas or restrict access to certain groups without reason?

If this is okay can we soon expect fly fishing only on some waters and other elitist intrusion to our enjoyment of ACA land?

I am not a bow hunter and do not appreciate being restricted from land that I have contributed to the purchase of. I have nothing against bow hunting but do not feel in any way that they are "fairer" or "more ethical" in their pursuit of game. In fact I believe an argument to the contrary is more logical and that bow hunters already enjoy enough preferential treatment with their early seasons and access to tags.

It would be very interesting to see what a person could be charged with if they ventured on to this land with a firearm. A person certainly wouldn't be trespassing or breaking any game laws.

What is the groups thoughts on this?

Suggest you phone ACA and ask them. Could well be land that was donated with that restriction but just a guess on my part. I am sure they can provide an explanation, may not be to your liking but at least you will know what they are doing and why.

E-mail ACA. See why they give preferential treatment of a certain hunting group. Maybe they have a good reason. I would hope that ACA wouldn't be fracturing hunters.

I will certainly be making contact but obviously not today.

Let us know what you find out please. Would be interested in knowing the reason too.

What site is it?

It is private land is it not? The government provides the ACA with a mandate to operate insofar as to achieve specific outcomes. As said in post #2, a donors wishes may be responsible for the restriction. I wouldn't rifle hunt on that land, considering that the risk in doing so could lead to the loss of all hunting privileges on that land. Not all ACA site allow hunting. Of 777 conservation sites, 660 allow hunting. Move on...

The land is owned and was purchased by ACA. I have no problem with no hunting allowed, I have a big problem with special access to certain groups of outdoorsmen.

I would like to know who exactly would have the authority to revoke my hunting privileges on this land. I don't bow hunt so it would be a moot point anyway.

The ACA was set up as a private not for profit corporation and therefore Their land is not your land and they can set rules and restrictions as they see fit.

30 to 40 years ago the Alberta Fish and Game Association did all the work that the ACA does today
But one day the money started to come with restrictions on how its was to be spent. AFGA did not want to be dictated to by the government of the day and lost their project funding and the ACA was formed

It is government funded and this project in particular is partnered with the feds and F&W. My money bought their land so there had better be equal access for all involved.

It would help us all out if you could tell us which site you’re referring to. Maybe it is too close to a township, or has residences nearby? I can see why there would be restrictions in that case. Or maybe it’s in the designated bow zones that surround Calgary and Edmonton??

You could legally hunt this land like every other quarter in Alberta, it's not in the bow zone.

My money paid for the saddle dome in Calgary and the new hockey arena in Edmonton through the provincial contribution I don’t get to use them for my own personal benefit any time I want.

fallow their rules or find some where else to hunt

Your rant is making you sound like an entitled millennial

Life’s not fair get over it

Maybe residences are close ? I know in sask they have primitive weapon areas that are close to towns and cottages etc

So if you show up at the Saddle Dome and are refused access for no apparent reason you'd be okay?

I don't want special treatment, I want equal treatment. If I show up at any public venue I expect to be treated like everyone else. If Beaver Lake is a trophy lake, I am okay with that. If Beaver Lake is for fly fishers only, I've got a problem with that.

Not the case here, hunting quarters on both sides.

You would be treated like everyone else if you show up and hunt like everyone else that goes in there and follows the rules set out. I have nothing against rifle hunters, despite the fact that i prefer my bow - as long as we’re all acting responsibly and with respect for one another. Once we start bitching and fighting amongst ourselves, we’re doing the anti’s job for them.

YOU are not being denied entry at all - only your rifle is.

Yeah, that makes sense.

I can't hunt there because I don't bow hunt but you are okay with it because you do. Perfectly fair and why should anyone have a problem as long as the bow guys are happy?

Impossible to enforce these ridiculous rules anyway so I am not too worried about it.

Yes I’m ok with that
I have to fallow the rules of Calgary Sports entertainment the owners of the flames and the lease holder of the building
The fact that my tax dollars paid for the building doesn’t mean squat

They obviously have a reason.. maybe they have volunteers out a lot, fixing fence, picking trash, doing bio studies and they don't want bullets wizzing around.. What ever the reason it shouldn't matter, have some respect child.

That’s the point though - you CAN hunt there... you simply can’t use a rifle... for whatever reasons the owners/managers of the land stipulate.
Infighting between bow hunters vs rifle hunters vs muzzleloader hunters and guides vs residents and big game hunters vs bird hunters WILL BE the cause of more and more hunting privileges being taken away by the anti hunting lobbyists. This sort of thing is US doing their work for them, and i honestly can’t understand it. You hunt with a rifle. Something i don’t do. For myself, i prefer the added challenge of bowhunting and find it more rewarding - but i do not judge you or condemn you or anything you do. Whatever it may be, so long as it’s legal, knock yourself out.
You complaining about a certain area of land being open only to bowhunters seems similar to a bowhunter complaining about rifle hunters taking more animals. If i don’t like the success of bowhunting, i can always try rifle hunting. Just as if you want to hunt that land, pick up a bow and go do it.

I hope you find your answer to why it’s an archery only property - but all i can say is, don’t complain about the guys who hunt within the rules set out by the property managers, AND follow those rules yourself.
Because, after all, if you break the rules and go in there with a rifle, who is truly the person who wants special treatment?

Fuys you need to calm down MK is not wrong here. In the absence of a good and viable reason for ACA to do this it would not be acceptable to me either. I am a bow hunter vut I would not support this without there being a good reason. We won't know one way or the other till we hear what ACA has to say.

You my friend are a snowflake the rules don’t apply to you

Any land owner can implement conditions on the access of their land whether that land owner is the Crown or private and if you break those rules you may end up being changed by the authorities

I have access to about 30000 acres of private land in the main wmu that I hunt about 3000 acres of that has been designated bow hunting only by the owners and they do call f&w and the rcmp when they see people accessing these properties with firearms

I don’t bow hunt anymore so I probably will never hunt this land I respect the rules set out by the land owners. friends and family who do bow hunt have some great opportunities when the neighboring properties are being pushed by rifle hunters ( like me ) in November

I wonder what would happen if it was designated "rifle hunting only" ???

I know more than one rancher that won't allow bow hunting, I would guess the stipulation was put on the land when the deal was struck. Some of ACA and DU land is bought at a sweet deal because the landowner believes in conservation.

In person I can assure you that the terms snow flake or entitled millennial would not be used by you or anyone else. Here on the net, I have reported your ignorance to the moderators and hope to see you gone.

There are two types of people who hunt
Those who follow the rules (me) and those who don’t (you)

I trust the moderators will look at your public willingness to break the law and threatening another member as as a reason to permanently ban a baby like you from this forum

Guys... c’mon. Even if we disagree, we don’t need to resort to insults and threats.
The entire point of a public outdoorsmen forum is so that we can discuss issues that involve our sport, and hopefully hear other guys point of view.

Although i don’t agree with the OP, i don’t need to be rude or a dick to try to force him to see things from my angle. We’re all adults here. Let’s act like it.

Then I would have to hunt with a rifle. Still have opportunity to hunt . Get a bow and give er

Which site.
 

If you check the site listing in the Discover Guide it will give you the exact restrictions.
http://www.albertadiscoverguide.com/

As much as you might not like a property being restricted to Bow Hunting only, it is so much better than being a No Hunting property.

I have seen a number of properties profiled in the ACA Conservation Magazine when they first open and many of them have restrictions placed by the landowner who donated the land. Not all ACA land is purchased by the ACA.

Some of these properties also require contacting the owner who still lives on the property to ensure access is available when you wish to go.

If someone is generous enough to donate the land and their stipulation is no rifle hunting or no hunting at all for that matter, I don't want ACA turning down the property, even if I don't like the restrictions, there are many others who can still enjoy the site.

Phil