Paid Access vs Paid Hunting

[ryeguy21]

There was a thread a few weeks back on paid hunting where a lot of people mentioned paid access to someones land is the same as paying to hunt.

On this topic that no one brought up fish and wild life are actively allowing a company to manage paid access to anyones land via their website canadianlandaccess.com F&W has determined that paid access to ones land isnt paid the same as paid access for hunting.

These 2 arent mutually exclusive as many claimed. So as long as you create your website to manage your access your free to charge as much as you want for those accessing your land.

IMO a land owner should have more freedom to do as he pleases with his land.

[pa_of_6]

Agreed!!
Trails on land I manage don’t get there free and require maintenance to keep them usable.
I have costs and it is the access to them trails and clearings that folks want.
So, let’s share the costs and share the enjoyment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dmcbride]

Originally Posted by pa_of_6

Agreed!!
Trails on land I manage don’t get there free and require maintenance to keep them usable.
I have costs and it is the access to them trails and clearings that folks want.
So, let’s share the costs and share the enjoyment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your land, or land you manage?

[ryeguy21]

Originally Posted by dmcbride

Your land, or land you manage?

What does it matter? We need better rules to clarify what land owners can or can't do otherwise you get companies like CLAS that operate in a grey area.

In the end everyone should play by the same rules but right now you've got one company pushing the limits weather you like paid access/Paid hunting or not.

[boah]

Beginning of the end, except for the rich.
Access fees for private land and if the NDP and tree huggers have their way, no access to public land.

[Norwest Alta]

Originally Posted by ryeguy21

There was a thread a few weeks back on paid hunting where a lot of people mentioned paid access to someones land is the same as paying to hunt.

On this topic that no one brought up fish and wild life are actively allowing a company to manage paid access to anyones land via their website canadianlandaccess.com F&W has determined that paid access to ones land isnt paid the same as paid access for hunting.

These 2 arent mutually exclusive as many claimed. So as long as you create your website to manage your access your free to charge as much as you want for those accessing your land.

IMO a land owner should have more freedom to do as he pleases with his land.

Thanks

[Norwest Alta]

Heard that the caretaker of the jackpine grazing lease was charging snowmobilers access. Legal or Not and how is hunting any different then any other outdoor recreation?

[chuck0039]

So he who has the most money gets to hunt the best properties. That how I see it going. Some one will tell the landowners, "I will give you so much for exclusive access".

[Ranch11]

This province and country is going to hell quickly.

I would never support paid access. Only the rich will be able to a past time that so many of us have a right to. The outfitters will have big smiles if this goes through.
Oh by the way, I'm not a fan of outfitters...

[ryeguy21]

Originally Posted by Norwest Alta

Thanks

Felt you were wrongly beaten up when the facts currently out there by fish and wild life separate paid access vs paid hunting. They don't consider them the same.

There's certainly room for debate on allowing land owners more freedoms without turning hunting into a rich mans game.

The paid access via a website is certainly a land owners loophole Into legally accepting money for "access". No one should need a loophole to do so.. it should be clarified and clearly laid out.

[HuntingAlberta]

Sadly, it doesn't much matter with the way our resources are in Alberta. Poorly managed and at the end of the day we have very finite resources with land & animals, plus human populations steadily increasing.

I'm not sure what the right answer is, but i do know that these 10-30 year wait times for hunting draws are something we are all going to have to get used to, rich or not.

[Norwest Alta]

Originally Posted by ryeguy21

Felt you were wrongly beaten up when the facts currently out there by fish and wild life separate paid access vs paid hunting. They don't consider them the same.

There's certainly room for debate on allowing land owners more freedoms without turning hunting into a rich mans game.

The paid access via a website is certainly a land owners loophole Into legally accepting money for "access". No one should need a loophole to do so.. it should be clarified and clearly laid out.

Thanks but some people were a little closed minded in my opinion that paid access only meant hunting which in my mind was paid access is access that was paid for. I appreciate your post.

[Norwest Alta]

Originally Posted by Ranch11

This province and country is going to hell quickly.

I would never support paid access. Only the rich will be able to a past time that so many of us have a right to. The outfitters will have big smiles if this goes through.
Oh by the way, I'm not a fan of outfitters...

You don't have a right to access my land nor I to access your land for whatever reason.

[Husty]

Private land - maybe paying for access is okay, id rather just have the land owner say no to all access if thats the case

On lease land - hell no

[Phshrmn]

Access is an issue and no landowner is going to get rich charging for access. But users of private land should be prepared to pay for the right to access - either directly or indirectly like the RAMP program a few years ago.

CLAS is ahead of the curve - "paid access' is inevitable and he has the infrastructure ready when it's legal. I expect it to be a nominal fee and designed to track access and control access rather than produce income.

ACA is also taking initiatives to facilitate free access - by using our fees to make it easier for landowners to grant and track access, free to us. They are working hard to improve and maintain access for hunters. Properties in my hunting area have signs and registration stations because ACA is working to maintain access on our behalf.

More hunters means more problems for landowners. We need to get ahead of the curve; find out what landowners believe would make their lives better when hunters use their land; find solutions that keep land accessible, and offer solutions that are centred on the needs of landowners when they grant access.

[Norwest Alta]

I'm anti gov't and the less that they dictate what I can and can't do with my land the happier I am. In my previous thread this was the point I was trying to make but failed to do so. My idea of paid access is more geared towards a landowners rights. It is not a get rich scheme but merely being able to do with my land as I "and I stress the term I " see fit.

[ryeguy21]

Phshrmn - clas is ahead of the curve but it does nothing that someone with basic computer knowledge couldnt setup themself for their own land. I don't get why you think his goal isnt to make money.

Your comment also seems to suggest hes doing something illegal... I guess thats the grey area I mentioned that needs to change for land owners.

[amosfella]

Originally Posted by Norwest Alta

I'm anti gov't and the less that they dictate what I can and can't do with my land the happier I am. In my previous thread this was the point I was trying to make but failed to do so. My idea of paid access is more geared towards a landowners rights. It is not a get rich scheme but merely being able to do with my land as I "and I stress the term I " see fit.

I'm going to take exception to something that you said. It's not your land. Unless you have a Crown Grant Title/Letters Patent ownership, you've only bought the use of the land. But as it's a use in 'fee simple', you can gift, will, etc that use of said land. Essentially, you're one step above a leasehold.

[Norwest Alta]

Originally Posted by amosfella

I'm going to take exception to something that you said. It's not your land. Unless you have a Crown Grant Title/Letters Patent ownership, you've only bought the use of the land. But as it's a use in 'fee simple', you can gift, will, etc that use of said land. Essentially, you're one step above a leasehold.

So I paid access. Coat it however you want. I have the deed.

[ditch donkey]

One of the main arguments against paid access is that it will end hunting for the average person. But hunting has really nothing to do with it. I don’t think anyone can rationalize limiting someone’s opportunity to make the most benefit of their property.

How many people opposed to paid access have a second home that they rent out, for a profit? What if someone told you could not charge rent to the people living there?

I’m not in favour of paid access or paid hunting, because I can see the down side. But I’m also objective enough to see that I can’t argue it.

[amosfella]

Originally Posted by Norwest Alta

So I paid access. Coat it however you want. I have the deed.

Nope. Sorry. You paying taxes on it?? You're paying rent... Do owners pay rent??

[dmcbride]

Originally Posted by amosfella

Nope. Sorry. You paying taxes on it?? You're paying rent... Do owners pay rent??

Is it rent or for services like roads, road maintenance, landfill Ect.? I live in the country and pay under $1000 a year in tax and I think I am getting the better end of the deal as I couldn’t keep the road plowed for that much.

[dmcbride]

Originally Posted by ryeguy21

What does it matter? We need better rules to clarify what land owners can or can't do otherwise you get companies like CLAS that operate in a grey area.

In the end everyone should play by the same rules but right now you've got one company pushing the limits weather you like paid access/Paid hunting or not.

It matters lots if it is actually your land or just land you manage. 2 different animals.

[Norwest Alta]

Originally Posted by amosfella

Nope. Sorry. You paying taxes on it?? You're paying rent... Do owners pay rent??

I'm unsure what you're getting at? I pay the mortgage,taxes, insurance, utilities, etc. I would like to believe I own it.

[mattthegorby]

If one wants to argue for landowners to charge for hunting access you need to argue for landowners to profit from the ability to regulate access to a public resource.

I am not saying this is a bad thing (I don't have the hunting experiance yet to know the impact), much of the tourism industry is built on similar relationships where the economic benefits justify private individuals profiting from shared resources.

Matt

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

[ryeguy21]

Originally Posted by mattthegorby

If one wants to argue for landowners to charge for hunting access you need to argue for landowners to profit from the ability to regulate access to a public resource.

I am not saying this is a bad thing (I don't have the hunting experiance yet to know the impact), much of the tourism industry is built on similar relationships where the economic benefits justify private individuals profiting from shared resources.

Matt

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

my main point in the thread is that paid access is already accepted by f&w. Paid Access and paid hunting are not the same thing.

A land owner should have more freedom to do as he pleases with his land...

Why are we letting a company operate in a grey area as opposed to letting owners do as they see fit with their land.

[mattthegorby]

Originally Posted by ryeguy21

my main point in the thread is that paid access is already accepted by f&w. Paid Access and paid hunting are not the same thing.

A land owner should have more freedom to do as he pleases with his land...

Why are we letting a company operate in a grey area as opposed to letting owners do as they see fit with their land.

I think that site is a bit of a grey area. Has F&W endorsed its use? It kind of looks like they are trying to position themselves in the market in case paid access becomes a reality. Can't see why a landowner would sign up to just manage free access. Maybe I do not understand the play they got going on there.

Matt

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

[hilt134]

Personally I think a land owners freedom ends at yes or no. You don't want a hunter ther say no. You let him on and he messes up say no. They dont Listen all the cops. And to the folks who say this isn't paying for hunting. That ridiculous. The other huge issue is if you have to pay for access you have no reasonably reason to turn someone away if they have the money. Just wait till discrimination cases roll in after landowners say no. Because if your charging for access it becomes a service like any other. And you better believe the government will want their cut aswell. If charge for access does become a thing I can't wait to see landowners forced to let more people in then they wanted because they didn't think it through.

[Norwest Alta]

Am I correct that this CLAS is a website that provides locations for recreational users and the fees go to the owners of the website or database. My understanding of what I read about this CLAS is that it is nothing more then a advertising agency.

[amosfella]

Originally Posted by Norwest Alta

I'm unsure what you're getting at? I pay the mortgage,taxes, insurance, utilities, etc. I would like to believe I own it.

I dont' really care what you'd like to believe. Property that isn't held under Crown Grant/Letters Patent is incorporated into the municipality. That's the government's words, not mine.