Quote:
Originally Posted by brendan's dad
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.
|
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.