Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil
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 |
This land was purchased using tax dollars and donations and is not in the bow zone.
If there is a legitimate reason for restriction I have no problem with that.
What I would have a problem with is a tiny segment of the outdoor community getting privilege over another for an ideal.
If it is for safety reasons then shotgunning for birds should still be okay.
Do you people really want ACA designating certain areas for certain groups? I personally don't believe bow hunting is anymore ethical than rifle hunting and I certainly don't want my tax dollars and license fees being used to promote elitism.
If you do promote elitism please stay tuned for "fly fishing only" coming to a river or lake near you.