hunting on road allowances

[expmler]

Originally Posted by sjd

I use a couple of undeveloped allowances to access crown land to hunt but there is no way I'd ever take a shot on one without having permission adjacent. I am not a bird hunter but I cant see how using any firearm in a narrow strip you can be confident about not tresspassing with either the shot or the game afterwards. Common sense suggests this is a historic oversight and could be changed.

That being said, I too have experienced way too many landowners who treat those allowances like they own them and if counties are looking at refreshing the rules I'd suggest abuse by landowners is as big as issue and the need for STIFF fines for landowners who seek to impede access and even a mandatory Public Access Allowed signage system to make it clear access is welcome.

I agree, no land owner should be able to stop access to a road allowance.

[shep dog]

Wow, the waters around here get really muddy awfully fast.

Rocky View County is planning to lobby the ESRD Minister to “make it unlawful to discharge a weapon along or across an undeveloped road allowance unless they have permission to hunt on the adjacent private land.”

Effectively, this would mean private landowners would decide who is allowed to hunt on URA's…regardless of the County’s motivation, whether or not you hunt on URA’s, your personal feelings about trespassers and stingy landowners, your Uncle Bob’s troubles with errant dogs in has pasture, the width of the URA or where it leads…

[expmler]

Originally Posted by shep dog

Wow, the waters around here get really muddy awfully fast.

Rocky View County is planning to lobby the ESRD Minister to “make it unlawful to discharge a weapon along or across an undeveloped road allowance unless they have permission to hunt on the adjacent private land.”

Effectively, this would mean private landowners would decide who is allowed to hunt on URA's…regardless of the County’s motivation, whether or not you hunt on URA’s, your personal feelings about trespassers and stingy landowners, your Uncle Bob’s troubles with errant dogs in has pasture, the width of the URA or where it leads…

The way it is now landowners decide who gets to retrieve that trophy that was shot on the road allowance and fell on private land.

I guess some think that is a better idea.

[elkdump]

A couple of years ago in BC some morons tried to have the Minitry of Wildlife get involved in a proposed exemption that if say Joe Blow Hard on the west side of Lame Duck Road did NOT allow Hunting , then Bob GoodGuy on the EAST side of Lame Duck Road. would be PROHIBITED FROM Allowing Hunting on HIS PROPERTY by the Ministry of Wildlife ,,,

Where do these ASHholes come up with these moronic ideas ????

[dmcbride]

If adjacent landowners can still hunt these road allowances it is plain wrong. It is not there land.

The argument that game shot on the road allowance will expire on the adjacent landowners land can be said for any crown land next to private land. What's next, no hunting any crown land that isn't at least a square mile and one must not hunt within 100 yards of the edge? Would landowners not be able to hunt the edges of there own property in the future?

Would the adjacent landowner need to have permission on the other side of the road allowance, what if the game expired on the other side of the road allowance?

Simple little changes like this could have big implications for hunting in general.

[elkdump]

Originally Posted by dmcbride

If adjacent landowners can still hunt these road allowances it is plain wrong. It is not there land.

The argument that game shot on the road allowance will expire on the adjacent landowners land can be said for any crown land next to private land. What's next, no hunting any crown land that isn't at least a square mile and one must not hunt within 100 yards of the edge? Would landowners not be able to hunt the edges of there own property in the future?

Would the adjacent landowner need to have permission on the other side of the road allowance, what if the game expired on the other side of the road allowance?

Simple little changes like this could have big implications for hunting in general.

In MANY locations adjacent land owners are NOT only hunting these undeveloped road allowances they are FARMING/RANCHING these lands as if they OWN THEM,
land for free to farm, and pay NO Tax or finance charges, pretty good scam !

[dmcbride]

Originally Posted by elkdump

In MANY locations adjacent land owners are NOT only hunting these undeveloped road allowances they are FARMING/RANCHING these lands as if they OWN THEM,
land for free to farm, and pay NO Tax or finance charges, pretty good scam !

Yep, and some of these road allowances have the only habitat that supports wildlife because it is bare fields on both sides and the landowners want to claim it as there own.

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by expmler

The way it is now landowners decide who gets to retrieve that trophy that was shot on the road allowance and fell on private land.

I guess some think that is a better idea.

Do you agree that if an animal is shot by a hunter in a perfectly legal manner, and the animal ran onto and expired on a landowners land, it would be pretty douchy for a landowner to allow the animal to go to waste rather than allowing the hunter to retrieve? If a hunter shot an animal on public land and it ran off to expire on expmler's dirt, and hunter went to expmler's house, knocked on his door and explained what happened, would expmler want the animal retrieved or would he tell hunter to pound sand?

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Talking moose

Do you agree that if an animal is shot by a hunter in a perfectly legal manner, and the animal ran onto and expired on a landowners land, it would be pretty douchy for a landowner to allow the animal to go to waste rather than allowing the hunter to retrieve? If a hunter shot an animal on public land and it ran off to expire on expmler's dirt, and hunter went to expmler's house, knocked on his door and explained what happened, would expmler want the animal retrieved or would he tell hunter to pound sand?

If I was the landowner, my first concern would be to determine if the animal actually ran onto the private land after being shot, or if it was already on the private land when it was shot. If I am the landowner in question, I would travel to the location to see if the evidence helps to establish which situation we are actually dealing with, before making a decision. If there is clear evidence of a blood trail leading onto the private land, and the position of the animal and the shooter indicate that the hunter was not shooting towards my buildings or equipment, I would likely allow the hunter to retrieve the animal. However, if the only blood visible is on the private land, and there is evidence that the animal was shot on the private land, even if it was a follow up shot, no permission would be granted, and F&W would be called. If there is evidence that the hunter had already entered the private land , before attempting to gain permission access would be denied. If the hunter displayed attitude as in he was telling me that he was going onto the land rather than asking, access would be denied.

[Dan the Saskbertan]

At the heart of the issue here is that Alberta has only so much wild spaces to go around and too many groups pulling in their self-interested direction. On Oct 1st, 2014 Alberta had 4,145,992 people; so as the province races to 4.2 million in the coming years there will be conflicts.

Think about what the argument is over! A little swath of land with a black track on it, that’s where the land use disputes have fallen to. In places like Saskatchewan and Manitoba nobody really worries about these things because there is enough to go around. The other phenomenon that has not affected these sparsely populated provinces is urbanization of the countryside with acreage lots. Acreage subdivisions are really nothing more than rural villages and some of the city folks who flock there may not want hunting in “their backyards” (even if it’s your land).

There should be a push for keeping public land actually public and providing tax incentives for landowners who provide public recreational fishing/hunting access. A sober second thought to rampant acreage development is needed when planning for adequate wildlife habitat. Once the acreage is established, the local shooting range, hunting opportunity or access to the adjacent water will vanish.

It's something to think about as Alberta's population soars. IMO

Dan

[expmler]

Originally Posted by Talking moose

Do you agree that if an animal is shot by a hunter in a perfectly legal manner, and the animal ran onto and expired on a landowners land, it would be pretty douchy for a landowner to allow the animal to go to waste rather than allowing the hunter to retrieve? If a hunter shot an animal on public land and it ran off to expire on expmler's dirt, and hunter went to expmler's house, knocked on his door and explained what happened, would expmler want the animal retrieved or would he tell hunter to pound sand?

Elkhunter11 summed it up perfectly.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by elkdump

In MANY locations adjacent land owners are NOT only hunting these undeveloped road allowances they are FARMING/RANCHING these lands as if they OWN THEM,
land for free to farm, and pay NO Tax or finance charges, pretty good scam !

The county should not allow that to happen. If it is happening you still have the right to travel that road allowance, the land owner cannot stop you.

[Redfrog]

Originally Posted by expmler

It was you that likened the undeveloped road allowance to the highway.

BTW, it is the county lobbying for the rule change. Not private citizens.

No , I asked for some clarification. Maybe try reading my post again.

I didn't ask who was lobbying, because I don't care.

If you are uncomfortable being held accountable for your statements, then I apologize.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by expmler

The county should not allow that to happen. If it is happening you still have the right to travel that road allowance, the land owner cannot stop you.

There are cases where the rancher/farmer leases the road allowance from the county. It happens a lot in southern Alberta.

[TBark]

I believe you do have the right to travel these farmed corridors.
From what a farmer told me, up in Greenview anyways, is that he applies to farm over the 20 m strip.
What is he supposed to do, leave a strip to grow up into rats nets of scrub and bush ? Double fence it maybe ?
Or as most on here would probably like, to keep it groomed for truck travel ?
This Thread keeps getting better.

TBark

[Redfrog]

Originally Posted by winger7mm

expmler, I talked to an officer this afternoon. She had stated that since you are in control of your dog you would be tresspassing. Straight from the horses mouth

And yet the concern about dogs accompanying a big game hunter is that the dog would not be under the hunter's control.

i wonder if a hunter could retrieve the game animal if he slipped the landowner a fifty?

[Redfrog]

Originally Posted by coreya3212

i am against closing any public land to hunting, that is currently open to hunting. How can anyone on this sight be for a move like this? Even a ajacent landowner. Stay off vbecause you might shoot something and trespass? You might trespass regardless. You might bury a body... You might you might you might.... Isn't that what anti firearms folks say is the reason we shouldn't have any guns. Because we might?

Exactly!

Give up a little more, Make more laws. That's the best way to grow the sport.

[Redfrog]

Originally Posted by TBark

So supporting such a proposal or a proposal like-in-kind makes a person anti-hunting ? BS.
Makes a person more for firearm safety and proper hunting ethics IMO.
High power rifle along 20 m strip, get real.

TBark

But across the fence on private land is safer???

[Redfrog]

Originally Posted by elkdump

In MANY locations adjacent land owners are NOT only hunting these undeveloped road allowances they are FARMING/RANCHING these lands as if they OWN THEM,
land for free to farm, and pay NO Tax or finance charges, pretty good scam !

How can this be? It's only 20 m wide. A landowner wouldn't do that.

[Redfrog]

Originally Posted by TBark

I believe you do have the right to travel these farmed corridors.
From what a farmer told me, up in Greenview anyways, is that he applies to farm over the 20 m strip.
What is he supposed to do, leave a strip to grow up into rats nets of scrub and bush ? Double fence it maybe ?
Or as most on here would probably like, to keep it groomed for truck travel ?
This Thread keeps getting better.

TBark

Leave it alone. It's not his.

What is a hunter supposed to do? Leave a deer alone that he has been hunting simply because it is on land he doesn"t own?

If it's not yours......well you know.

[TBark]

Wow

[elkdump]

Originally Posted by Redfrog

How can this be? It's only 20 m wide. A landowner wouldn't do that.

Do the math, 20m wide and 1mile long,

I am no mathematician ,, but I think that adds up to about 8 acres, so. Say
If harvest of wheat is 60 bushels to the acre , multiplied by maybe 20 years of free use it would be substantial amount$ of profit$ off of Public owned land,,,,, hmmm

[Talking moose]

It's ok for a farmer to farm public land but not ok for a hunter to hunt private land..... Check. Lol

[elkdump]

Originally Posted by Talking moose

It's ok for a farmer to farm public land but not ok for a hunter to hunt private land..... Check. Lol

It is impossible to " Trespass " while seated in a heated Cab of a Combine!

Sec 666 Wildlife Act
Part II SUBSECTION 69
Article TweeTwenteeTwee

Revised

Quite Recently to New Statute known as

I can do as I dammed well please, cause I live near to hereabouts(farm lingo)

[Redfrog]

Originally Posted by elkdump

Do the math, 20m wide and 1mile long,

I am no mathematician ,, but I think that adds up to about 8 acres, so. Say
If harvest of wheat is 60 bushels to the acre , multiplied by maybe 20 years of free use it would be substantial amount$ of profit$ off of Public owned land,,,,, hmmm

Sorry Elkdump. I couldn't find the emoticon for sarcasm.

Of course some farm it, and fence it and gate it.

I'm pretty sure those same guys would be choked if I did that to 899.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by Redfrog

No , I asked for some clarification. Maybe try reading my post again.

I didn't ask who was lobbying, because I don't care.

If you are uncomfortable being held accountable for your statements, then I apologize.

OK, I read your post again.

The farmer would not control access to the road allowance.

You can't control access to 899 and the farmer cannot control access to the road allowance.

A R.O.W. is nothing like a road allowance, R.O.W.s are not public land.



What is an easement or right-of-way?
An easement* or right-of-way is an agreement that confers on an individual, company or municipality the right to use a landowner’s property in some way. While these agreements grant rights, they also have the effect of partially restricting an owner’s use of the affected portions of land.

For example, if you own property and a utility company has a main gas line passing under your land, it is likely that they will have a registered easement that will guarantee them access to the line and restrict uses or activities that would hamper such access or cause safety concerns.

Easements and rights-of-way are usually registered on the certificate of title to the property. They remain with the land and are automatically transferred from one owner to another as the land is sold. Easements remain on the title until the holder of the easement discharges their rights from the certificate of title.

An easement or right-of-way usually describes a particular portion of property, and although not visible on the ground, provides an area of access to the holder of the easement or right-of-way.

Easements and rights-of-way are very common. Most urban and many rural properties are subject to easement or right-of-way agreements.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by avb3

There are cases where the rancher/farmer leases the road allowance from the county. It happens a lot in southern Alberta.

Does that give the rancher the right to deny access to the road allowance?

[Redfrog]

Originally Posted by expmler

Does that give the rancher the right to deny access to the road allowance?

No more than any other lease I would imagine.

It doesn't stop some landowners from fencing, gating and posting raod allowances whether they lease them or not, any more than a trespass law stops someone who wants to trespass.

In the case of trespass ., call the cops, and it gets dealt with. In the case of a landowner blocking public access without legal right to do so is not solved so easily.
That is the reality.
We do not need more laws. we need some common sense and and effort to get along.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by Redfrog

Leave it alone. It's not his.

What is a hunter supposed to do? Leave a deer alone that he has been hunting simply because it is on land he doesn"t own?

If it's not yours......well you know.

Yes, without the permission of the county who owns the road allowance, the farmer must leave it alone.

Yes, without the permission of the land owner, the hunter must leave any animals on his land alone.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by expmler

But it would. If the law says there is no hunting on this county owned land, it applies to everyone.

An adjacent landowner cannot give permission to any one to hunt on land that is not his, nor could he hunt it himself.

Bull.......


I'm not sure if you are ignorant of the proposed regulation change or if you are purposely trying to fool people into believing you in order gain support for your position....

The resolution clearly states that hunting on these public lands will be controlled by the adjacent landowners.

IMO, Giving private citizens control of hunting rights to Pubic lands is a dangerous precident.


From Rocky View County - Resolution 9-14S
http://www.aamdc.com/attachments/art...0Submitted.pdf

"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties urge the Government of Alberta to amend Section 51 of the Wildlife Act so as to prohibit the discharge of a firearm from or cause a projectile from a firearm to pass along or across an undeveloped road allowance unless a person has consent of owner(s) and/or occupant(s) of land(s) located directly adjacent to the undeveloped road allowance."