Poaching and my rights as a loandowner

[dgl1948]

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

Would you please list all these tax breaks and subsidies Red?

60% of you crop insurance is subsidized. Then we could go to grain stabilization if you want. How about the livestock stabilization plan.

[Dakota369]

Originally Posted by norwestalta

How do we know the ethical hunters from the non ethical ones. Everyone on here will tell you how good of hunters they are and I have yet to here anyone say how unethical he or she may be. Got to be someone that is honest and that someone is the one I think I'd be more than happy to have hunting on my land. At least he or she is not blowing smoke up my ass.

Well for starters......the ethical ones ask for permission........

It was funny, last year when I went to talk to a landowner I know and asked permission, he said that he really appreciated that I stopped in to see him as most guys nowadays don't. Now he has both hay leases, and private land, but I make it a point to see him every year, and see how things are going. I know all I have to do is call and tell him I will be out on his hay lease, but then I would never get a chance to hunt on the 4 quarters he owns!!

Anyways, just remember, Ethics are personal and about as varied as caliber's.... but ya gotta have a starting point.....

[norwestalta]

Originally Posted by CBintheNorth

How will paid access help stop idiots? How much do you charge to cover the worst thing they could possibly do? Or do you take some cash from everyone to equal the cost of the quarter in case it's totally destroyed?
Do you charge the people that you deem to be good the same as the ones you suspect to be idiots?
I just don't see how charging for access will stop the problems you guys are having with idiots. Chances are, the guys with the cash flow to be able to pay for access are probably the same self-entitled losers causing most of the problems.

My thoughts are that paid access would cut down on the idiot's because you as a paying hunter would have a invested stake in hunting my land and would maybe protect it much like i would. If many of you are champions of the landowners I would think there would be no problem with access. I've got my select dozen or so hunters that have permission and I'm quite happy with that. Myself personally wouldn't think about charging for access but it should be within my rights to do so as I see fit.

[norwestalta]

Dakota that is the nicest most ethical thing you can do is ask for permission. My neighbors normally say what the hell are you asking for but even if I know the answer is yes it's still good to ask.

[hillbillyreefer]

Originally Posted by dgl1948

60% of you crop insurance is subsidized. Then we could go to grain stabilization if you want. How about the livestock stabilization plan.

Those are all insurance programs, designed to be in compliance with global trade agreements. There are thresholds that prices/yields must fall below to qualify for payments and premiums must be paid up to qualify. I agree they are all poorly designed, managed and financed. I have nothing to do with any of them, and support getting rid of the government insurance schemes, let the market sort it out.

[Flatlandliver]

Originally Posted by norwestalta

How do we know the ethical hunters from the non ethical ones.

Time. Getting to know them over a period of years? References from other landowners? I dont know. Trust needs to be earned for sure but where do you start. As was stated, ethical guys ask for permission and respect no for an answer, maybe give you a call in the spring to see if you need a hand fencing or whatever. Its tough when you dont live near the property both for landowners but the best methods I have seen is to give permission to some guys you trust or want to give a chance to and see if they earn the right to keep having the "privilege" of hunting the property. You can always say no next time and having hunters in a area will general reduce trespassing/poaching activities. Hunters will protect their "spots" as much as the landowner imo.
As far as paid access, just a bad idea. Bottom line is the wildlife is not the property of the landowner. The comparison to oil companies is a bad one, no one (except outfitters) is making money off of hunting.

[norwestalta]

Originally Posted by Flatlandliver

Time. Getting to know them over a period of years? References from other landowners? I dont know. Trust needs to be earned for sure but where do you start. As was stated, ethical guys ask for permission and respect no for an answer, maybe give you a call in the spring to see if you need a hand fencing or whatever. Its tough when you dont live near the property both for landowners but the best methods I have seen is to give permission to some guys you trust or want to give a chance to and see if they earn the right to keep having the "privilege" of hunting the property. You can always say no next time and having hunters in a area will general reduce trespassing/poaching activities. Hunters will protect their "spots" as much as the landowner imo.
As far as paid access, just a bad idea. Bottom line is the wildlife is not the property of the landowner. The comparison to oil companies is a bad one, no one (except outfitters) is making money off of hunting.

I agree time and earned trust is the answer.
I don't have a answer for the paid access. I realize that the wildlife does not belong to the landowner. I don't know how much money would be involved in paid access but I don't think much. I could be wrong. My concern is that it is my land and I should be able to do with it as I deem fit. Just because I've had a 200" whitetail in my hayfield doesn't mean that it isn't on the neighbors 1/4 or vice versa as well.
How about this instead of paid access. You have unlimited access but you must use my tractor to recover your animal from my field. To use my tractor is going to cost you about $750+ to cover my wages and fuel.
No matter what it doesn't cure the trespassers.

[Flatlandliver]

Originally Posted by norwestalta

I agree time and earned trust is the answer.
I don't have a answer for the paid access. I realize that the wildlife does not belong to the landowner. I don't know how much money would be involved in paid access but I don't think much. I could be wrong. My concern is that it is my land and I should be able to do with it as I deem fit. Just because I've had a 200" whitetail in my hayfield doesn't mean that it isn't on the neighbors 1/4 or vice versa as well.
How about this instead of paid access. You have unlimited access but you must use my tractor to recover your animal from my field. To use my tractor is going to cost you about $750+ to cover my wages and fuel.
No matter what it doesn't cure the trespassers.

On the right track maybe.
I know one of the farmers where I hunt charges $100 to get your moose/elk with the tractor.
Others charge for lodging, food, fuel etc.
You could always get your outfitters license.
You are right about the trespassers unfortunately. All gates and signs do is keep honest people honest. Stiffer (by tons) penalties for bad guys and more vigilance from good guys catching them. This has been the worst year in many where I am hunting. F&W has been out a ton. One of the Officers thought high beef prices may have something to do with it but who knows. Its not a remote area by any stretch and night shooting has been a major issue, if the critter doesnt drop on the spot, its not recovered until one of us hunters finds it the next day. Bad deal all around. Trespassers and poachers should never be refered to as hunters.

[Redfrog]

Originally Posted by J D

You have full right to tell every hunter or other members of the public stay off your land. If having hunters on your land bothers you than tell them screw off even.

As for paid access I will tell any land owner that suggests it to screw off as well as I will not support it. I have no issue hunting else where crown land or on private land where the farmer gives permission. Some farmers actually welcome respectful hunters and like have some pressure put on the herd to limit crop damage.

If you really want to get into running paid hunting I recommend buying land south of the border.

If you have a problem with hunters deny access to your land but I don't recommend getting into paid hunting because then you will be dealing with hunters that have a contract YOU must abide by to hunt your land. You will open a whole new issue and still have trespassers

Best of luck and even with your attitude I still would like to see the slob trespassers you deal with punished.

well said JD.


"I have no problem giving you as a land owner my definition of respectful and non respectful hunters. The governments of Canada should take my definitions,study them and then make them law."

If you already know the definition and everyone who disagrees with you is a cowardly coyote, why would I ever take you or your rant seriously.? I only reply for the amusement factor.

As far as making your ideas into laws, please let me know whne you feel you can do a better job than the gov't we have. I make it a point to support and helpt those who I think are qualified.


HBReefer. I didn't ask because I know the answer. That would be a waste of time.

I have no issue with a land owner refusing access to his land. None, Zip, Nada. I do have a problem with idiots who have a sense of entitlement.

BTW if there are any lease holders who would like to step up and tell us if you only allow paid hunting now.

Do leaseholders derive any moneys from the energy industry or is it only deeded land that gets the revenue?

This doesn't have to be complicated. I ask permission. I respect the landowner, his property and equipment. If it is lease land, then I expect reasonable access to it, after asking of course.

Oh yeah. Hillbilly Reefer, if you let me know how much money you need for those
No Tresspassing" signs, I'll help you out. I'll even come help put the suckers up.

[EGGPLANT]

I live in calgary and own 4 1/4s near boyle. i had the same problem for years. resolved the issue with a fine gentleman from around the region. Posted signs and gave him exclusive permission when Im not there. He is very active is keeping all the yahoo's out. Works good

Cheers

Eggplant

[norwestalta]

Flatland, I was thinking it was getting better. Lol. I only seen to dead deer that were possibly shot and left. In the past years I've seen moose, deer and elk that were left, many with their heads cut off. Maybe the idiot's are scaring the idiot's around here. I've been working most of Nov so I can't tell how many hunters are out but there seemed to be alot less this year then previous seasons.

[Flatlandliver]

Originally Posted by norwestalta

Flatland, I was thinking it was getting better. Lol. I only seen to dead deer that were possibly shot and left. In the past years I've seen moose, deer and elk that were left, many with their heads cut off. Maybe the idiot's are scaring the idiot's around here. I've been working most of Nov so I can't tell how many hunters are out but there seemed to be alot less this year then previous seasons.

I am pretty close to the big smoke down here and have had to call f&w twice this year and I'm not out every day either. Moose have been found with chunks of meat cut off and we have always had issues with heads taken from muleys. Not saying its city guys or locals, probably some combination. I do know of a number of guys that were caught this year and charged. Maybe some form of public shaming would help deter them next year?
A lot of the landowners where I hunt rely on those of us with permission to keep an eye on things when we are in the field. A fair number have been caught this way over the years, I just dont think there is enough of a deterrent because it just isnt getting any better. That said way more game in this area then I have seen in many years as well. My group decided to not shoot wt does a few years ago in spite of the supp tags and it seems to be paying off. Most does had twins again this year so here is hoping for a decent winter. Chinooks certainly help around here, sounds bad farther north.

[norwestalta]

Ya I don't know what it is but many make a mess of themselves seeing a animal out in the field and permission or not figure they just have to shoot it.

[pikeslayer22]

Originally Posted by Flatlandliver

I am pretty close to the big smoke down here and have had to call f&w twice this year and I'm not out every day either. Moose have been found with chunks of meat cut off and we have always had issues with heads taken from muleys. Not saying its city guys or locals, probably some combination. I do know of a number of guys that were caught this year and charged. Maybe some form of public shaming would help deter them next year?
A lot of the landowners where I hunt rely on those of us with permission to keep an eye on things when we are in the field. A fair number have been caught this way over the years, I just dont think there is enough of a deterrent because it just isnt getting any better. That said way more game in this area then I have seen in many years as well. My group decided to not shoot wt does a few years ago in spite of the supp tags and it seems to be paying off. Most does had twins again this year so here is hoping for a decent winter. Chinooks certainly help around here, sounds bad farther north.

The deterrent thing is huge flatland liver...it amazes me how people have no problems Tresspassing on private land but in zones with ecological reserves and the like no one even thinks of going in because of the fines and penalties associated

[Flatlandliver]

Originally Posted by pikeslayer22

The deterrent thing is huge flatland liver...it amazes me how people have no problems Tresspassing on private land but in zones with ecological reserves and the like no one even thinks of going in because of the fines and penalties associated

Yup, take their guns and trucks away, put their names in the paper.

[Redfrog]

Why is it not done?

[Flatlandliver]

Originally Posted by Redfrog

Why is it not done?

Maybe there needs to be a hunter lobby for it. We get painted with the same brush constantly. Join you local f&g associations and push them to act.

[dgl1948]

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

Those are all insurance programs, designed to be in compliance with global trade agreements. There are thresholds that prices/yields must fall below to qualify for payments and premiums must be paid up to qualify. I agree they are all poorly designed, managed and financed. I have nothing to do with any of them, and support getting rid of the government insurance schemes, let the market sort it out.

Yes, subsidized insurance policies that benefit hundreds of farmers every year and not just in Alberta.

[expmler]

If pay for access was legal you would see many land owners who do not allow any hunting on there land now open it up to hunters who will pay.
That would reduce the pressure and traffic that is on crown land and private land that is accessible now.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by dgl1948

Yes, subsidized insurance policies that benefit hundreds of farmers every year and not just in Alberta.

If wildlife is a public resource why doesn't the gov't pay 100% of the cost of damage?

Why should farmers have to pay insurance premiums at all?

[wasteland.soldier]

Originally Posted by expmler

If wildlife is a public resource why doesn't the gov't pay 100% of the cost of damage?

Why should farmers have to pay insurance premiums at all?

Are you talking about predation? The government (well, hunters really) do pay 100% of those losses as far as I know.

The 60% subsidy is for crop insurance, which covers drought, hail, flooding, etc. Sometimes it also covers revenue losses from a drop in commodity prices, although I'm not sure if that's the case in the Alberta subsidized insurance.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by wasteland.soldier

Are you talking about predation? The government (well, hunters really) do pay 100% of those losses as far as I know.

The 60% subsidy is for crop insurance, which covers drought, hail, flooding, etc. Sometimes it also covers revenue losses from a drop in commodity prices, although I'm not sure if that's the case in the Alberta subsidized insurance.

Crop insurance also pays for crop loss due to wildlife.

[snroth]

Everyone is talking about the wildlife being the publics and landowners should not be able to stop you from hunting them on their land. So if the the wildlife is the publics why do the outfitters get to charge someone to shoot the publics wildlife. I would have to say the outfitters are benefitting way more off the "publics" animals than any landowner is.

[norwestalta]

Originally Posted by snroth

Everyone is talking about the wildlife being the publics and landowners should not be able to stop you from hunting them on their land. So if the the wildlife is the publics why do the outfitters get to charge someone to shoot the publics wildlife. I would have to say the outfitters are benefitting way more off the "publics" animals than any landowner is.

This is another question. If the wildlife is public's why does the crown not pay for damages to my truck when i hit one. I have to have wildlife insurance on my truck in case I do.

[coreya3212]

Originally Posted by snroth

Everyone is talking about the wildlife being the publics and landowners should not be able to stop you from hunting them on their land. So if the the wildlife is the publics why do the outfitters get to charge someone to shoot the publics wildlife. I would have to say the outfitters are benefitting way more off the "publics" animals than any landowner is.

Has anyone said that they feel a landowner should not be allowed to deny permission on private land?

Someone else asked what the difference between charging for access to hunt vs accepting access payment from an oil company would be. I would say one difference is you don't have the option to say no to the oil company.

[norwestalta]

Originally Posted by cyreya3212

Has anyone said that they feel a landowner should not be allowed to deny permission on private land?

Someone else asked what th.e difference between charging for access to hunt vs accepting access payment from an oil company would be. I would say one difference is you don't have the option to say no to the oil company.

Just so you know the oil companies don't pay alot for access. I gave them access to my dugout and it might be $1200. Sure they pay for a lease or pipeline.

[wasteland.soldier]

Originally Posted by snroth

Everyone is talking about the wildlife being the publics and landowners should not be able to stop you from hunting them on their land.

Who's said that?

[snroth]

[QUOTE=coreya3212;2635022]Has anyone said that they feel a landowner should not be allowed to deny permission on private land?

Yes there are multiple post on all the trespassing threads about free access to all land because the animals are all the publics.

[landowner]

Originally Posted by expmler

If pay for access was legal you would see many land owners who do not allow any hunting on there land now open it up to hunters who will pay.
That would reduce the pressure and traffic that is on crown land and private land that is accessible now.

Yes that is what happened with the RAMP program. After that program was shut down most Ramp land is now not accessible in my area. Outfitters aren't the only business that benefits from the public game. Gas stations,restaurants , hunting stores, hotels etc. do well. Yet landowners are supposed to bear the hunting pressure while other groups benefit.

[coreya3212]

[QUOTE=snroth;2635060]

Originally Posted by coreya3212

Has anyone said that they feel a landowner should not be allowed to deny permission on private land?

Yes there are multiple post on all the trespassing threads about free access to all land because the animals are all the publics.

Ok if you say so, I suppose in some threads there a re a few in every crowd, but quite honestly I don't often get the impression from most that that is the majority belief around here. This thread in particular, I don't recall reading anyone stating they believe a landowner should not be allowed to deny permission.