Open minded discussion: paid access the pros and cons

[Norwest Alta]

Originally Posted by ResidentSpokesman

Not sure if you can legally charge for access to fish. I’ve never encountered that. Off to Google I go...

Lol. I don't know but if I stocked my dugout I would think it would be reasonable to do so.

[Norwest Alta]

Originally Posted by SLH

I've asked before how in that situation do you protect my right to the public trust?

This I don't know and I'm trying to understand why it would be any different.

[hal53]

Originally Posted by SLH

I've asked before how in that situation do you protect my right to the public trust?

Just a question, and please don't take it out of context. Exactly what "rights" do you have to the public trust that you are referring to now?

[Norwest Alta]

Originally Posted by catnthehat

leasing a spot on someone's land simply to park an RV is one thing.
leasing a spot on someone's land with the intent of that person then letting them hunt big game on that land is another.
Cat

How so? It is my land if I want to charge access there is no difference wether to sit your holiday trailer, walk amongst the cows or sit in a tree stand. Paid access is not only hunting activities. It is access to my land to recreate however you'd like providing it is in accordance with the landowners

[Joe Black]

Originally Posted by dfrobert

Don’t kid ourselves. The paid access is already happening out there and it stinks. Paid access has no benefits in my eyes.

I'll put a caveat to the above. It is already happening in trophy animal areas and any area within 2 hours of any centre bigger than 10000 people. Truth as it is today. I do not play the "ask permission game" anymore if the above Conditions exist. I hunt crown land or private land so remote the local landowners appreciate someone showing some respect by asking for permission before they just help themselves.

So do i think it would be better or worse? Bout the same is my guess. Not sure how the hunters that are currently on the outside looking in would be in any worse shape.

[SLH]

Originally Posted by hal53

Just a question, and please don't take it out of context. Exactly what "rights" do you have to the public trust that you are referring to now?

You me and every Albertan has the right to legally apply within the laws for a hunting licenses. If after that I don't have enough money to access it because of paid hunting my right to access the public trust has been lost.

A landowners decision to allow me on his land is his control of his rights to his land.

[ResidentSpokesman]

Originally Posted by Joe Black

I'll put a caveat to the above. It is already happening in trophy animal areas and any area within 2 hours of any centre bigger than 10000 people. Truth as it is today. I do not play the "ask permission game" anymore if the above Conditions exist. I hunt crown land or private land so remote the local landowners appreciate someone showing some respect by asking for permission before they just help themselves.

So do i think it would be better or worse? Bout the same is my guess. Not sure how the hunters that are currently on the outside looking in would be in any worse shape.

It happens everywhere there is private land. (Which now that I think about it, is probably pretty accurately described as “within two hours of any city over 100 000 people”).

[Norwest Alta]

Originally Posted by SLH

You me and every Albertan has the right to legally apply within the laws for a hunting licenses. If after that I don't have enough money to access it because of paid hunting my right to access the public trust has been lost.

A landowners decision to allow me on his land is his control of his rights to his land.

This I don't understand. How charging access to deeded land would affect you or other Albertans. As it stands you have no right what so ever to anything on my land.

[slickwilly]

I am opposed to paid hunting access, because I view the animal's being hunted as owned by all the residents, so I don't think it is the landowner's right to charge for access to the animals.

However, I do understand how money could be an incentive to manage for habitat. That's why I would like to see a CRP or Block Land Management system put in place here in Alberta.

For those who don't know:

CRP is a program where farmers enroll and sign a deal to leave sections of land unbroken, or let them go fallow. In return, the farmers are paid by the government, and they open the land to public access. This keeps marginal farmland out of rotation, and puts it to use as habitat.

Block Land Management is a Montana program where ranchers and farmers are paid by the government to open their land to hunting. They can have sign in sheets, limits on the number of people, etc., and the government takes on all the risk for allowing access (which I'm not sure is such an issue here, but is in the US, where paid access comes with legal liability).

I am not opposed to land owners making money from their land, but I am opposed to selling publicly owned animals to the highest bidder. Having the government do the paying, and then giving access to all hunters equally seems like a good compromise to me.

[SLH]

Originally Posted by Norwest Alta

This I don't understand. How charging access to deeded land would affect you or other Albertans. As it stands you have no right what so ever to anything on my land.

You have control of access but you do not own the wildlife, like you don't own the minerals under it. If you dont own it you dont have the right to profit from it.

My rights to the public trust do not supersede your rights to who comes on your land

[Red Bullets]

I am just wondering?... No one has mentioned the liability involved with this type of paid access. If someone is receiving money the money becomes a contract. Contracts involve both parties being responsible to different degrees. I know contracts can be tailored to suit but still is a contract. Anyone else think this could be a factor?

Also, the lands in our province have been designated for different purposes. Land designated as agricultural cannot do certain things as far as developing the land. Every county has restrictions. Last year one county SE of red deer was flying over county properties looking for people setting up private camping spots and shutting them down.

And taxes wise...A landowner has a farm tax. If he is making money off of the land not agriculturally, it could affect his tax rates.

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by Norwest Alta

How so? It is my land if I want to charge access there is no difference wether to sit your holiday trailer, walk amongst the cows or sit in a tree stand. Paid access is not only hunting activities. It is access to my land to recreate however you'd like providing it is in accordance with the landowners

it is very simple,you are not allowed to charge for hunting privileges.
If the law has decided by investigation that the people on your land are camping there, and paying while being granted hunting privileges you could be in for some court appearances.
Cat

[Joe Black]

Forgot to add. About the only thing that legal paid access would accomplish is giving the landowners already doing it a little better sleep at night.

[ResidentSpokesman]

Originally Posted by Red Bullets

I am just wondering?... No one has mentioned the liability involved with this type of paid access. If someone is receiving money the money becomes a contract. Contracts involve both parties being responsible to different degrees. I know contracts can be tailored to suit but still is a contract. Anyone else think this could be a factor?

Also, the lands in our province have been designated for different purposes. Land designated as agricultural cannot do certain things as far as developing the land. Every county has restrictions. Last year one county SE of red deer was flying over county properties looking for people setting up private camping spots and shutting them down.

And taxes wise...A landowner has a farm tax. If he is making money off of the land not agriculturally, it could affect his tax rates.

All excellent points.

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by Norwest Alta

I would like to keep this respectful. If that is not possible please keep your comments to yourself.

I'm a advocate of landowners rights and believe one of the rights a landowner should have is to do as he/she sees fit as long as it does not endanger the general public nor have adverse effects on the environment. In my mind paid access includes hunting, fishing, camping and just about anything some might want to do on private deeded land.

I'm gonna guess that many like myself have never paid nor received payment for access to private except if you're a camper who stays in campgrounds. If you've been involved in paying for access I would like to hear your experiences and thoughts.

These are some of the pros I can think of off hand.

Landowner can make additional income of the property
Open up more private land for recreational users
Average landowner might be more inclined to better manage the property in terms of wildlife

The cons
Not all could afford the access fee
Potentially could lead to more trespassing violations

Please fill free to add if you are a landowner or not.

There is a lot of public land under private control. Let’s take care of that problem first. But if you in your wildest dreams don’t think paid hunting will end hunting for 60% of Albertans, mostly young Albertans, you need to rethink your position.

This position is anti hunting. It will have more affect than any peta campaign ever will.

[Dewey Cox]

Originally Posted by SLH

You have control of access but you do not own the wildlife, like you don't own the minerals under it. If you dont own it you dont have the right to profit from it.

My rights to the public trust do not supersede your rights to who comes on your land

If someone sets up to harvest the minerals/oil/gas that's under your land, they still pay you surface lease for being there.

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

When you assign a $$$ value to access things get locked down and it becomes a rich mans game period.

LC

Yup and people get real greedy and find out in the long run that it was not worth it.

[whitetail Junkie]

Originally Posted by Red Bullets

I am just wondering?... No one has mentioned the liability involved with this type of paid access. If someone is receiving money the money becomes a contract. Contracts involve both parties being responsible to different degrees. I know contracts can be tailored to suit but still is a contract. Anyone else think this could be a factor?

Also, the lands in our province have been designated for different purposes. Land designated as agricultural cannot do certain things as far as developing the land. Every county has restrictions. Last year one county SE of red deer was flying over county properties looking for people setting up private camping spots and shutting them down.

And taxes wise...A landowner has a farm tax. If he is making money off of the land not agriculturally, it could affect his tax rates.

I believe this was brought up in the past on here and a very high insurance premium is what One knowledgeable gentlemen on the subject @ hand mentioned.

Like crossbows in archery season,sheep on draw,etc...paid hunting is something I’ve heard of multiple times in alberta but yet Has’nt happened and likely never will.

[ResidentSpokesman]

Is there an echo in here?

[SLH]

Originally Posted by Dewey Cox

If someone sets up to harvest the minerals/oil/gas that's under your land, they still pay you surface lease for being there.

Mineral extraction is done on a commercial basis were the extractor expects to make a profit. Do you want our wildlife distributed on a commercial basis.

North American Model of Wildlife Conservation has done us well I don't think we should alter it now.

[Norwest Alta]

Originally Posted by whitetail Junkie

I believe this was brought up in the past on here and a very high insurance premium is what One knowledgeable gentlemen on the subject @ hand mentioned.

Like crossbows in archery season,sheep on draw,etc...paid hunting is something I’ve heard of multiple times in alberta but yet Has’nt happened and likely never will.

I do remember a grey character with some first hand knowledge of the consequences of permission granted that went wrong.

[Norwest Alta]

Originally Posted by chuck

There is a lot of public land under private control. Let’s take care of that problem first. But if you in your wildest dreams don’t think paid hunting will end hunting for 60% of Albertans, mostly young Albertans, you need to rethink your position.

This position is anti hunting. It will have more affect than any peta campaign ever will.

Enlighten me chuck. I'd really like to know were the 60% figure comes from.

Remember this is deeded land not public land and is paid access not paid hunting?

[chinchaga07]

Originally Posted by Red Bullets

I am just wondering?... No one has mentioned the liability involved with this type of paid access. If someone is receiving money the money becomes a contract. Contracts involve both parties being responsible to different degrees. I know contracts can be tailored to suit but still is a contract. Anyone else think this could be a factor?

Also, the lands in our province have been designated for different purposes. Land designated as agricultural cannot do certain things as far as developing the land. Every county has restrictions. Last year one county SE of red deer was flying over county properties looking for people setting up private camping spots and shutting them down.

And taxes wise...A landowner has a farm tax. If he is making money off of the land not agriculturally, it could affect his tax rates.

With all this talk about liability raises an observation for me. If a landowner is allowing paid access (assuming we are at that point already) he is now running a business of sorts. I am not saying he is outfitting but he is taking monies in return for access to land to hunt. Would that landowner now have to take out commercial general liabilty insurance for his venture. Would he not have to register said business? I may be talking out my A*& but it was the liability comment that made me think of it.

[Norwest Alta]

Originally Posted by chinchaga07

With all this talk about liability raises an observation for me. If a landowner is allowing paid access (assuming we are at that point already) he is now running a business of sorts. I am not saying he is outfitting but he is taking monies in return for access to land to hunt. Would that landowner now have to take out commercial general liabilty insurance for his venture. Would he not have to register said business? I may be talking out my A*& but it was the liability comment that made me think of it.

A farm is already a business which I would think already has insurance. I don't know if more would be required. I suppose one could be a landowner and not be a farmer. They might be there own private entity and might not have insurance. Something to ponder for sure.

[FCLightning]

Originally Posted by Dewey Cox

If someone sets up to harvest the minerals/oil/gas that's under your land, they still pay you surface lease for being there.

Because in theory you have loss of use of the land. When someone hunts game animals on your property there is no loss of use.

[fatboyz]

I personally would be opposed. Say a 50.00/day charge. To take my two daughters and wife that would be 200.00/day, or 400.00 for a weekend. I would expect that outfitters and well off hunters would pay considerably more than that to tie up prime hunting land so that would leave me unable to hunt those lands. I think its a slippery slope to go down.

[Dewey Cox]

Originally Posted by FCLightning

Because in theory you have loss of use of the land. When someone hunts game animals on your property there is no loss of use.

It would ruin your picnic though.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by Norwest Alta

One of the things that I have a hard time wrapping my head around is that I can charge for someone to park their motor home and do a little camping. Possibly even fish in my dugout. Many of you already do pay for this or possibly would pay for it but the minute someone throws in the hunting word and paying for access to my property all hell breaks loose.

Are you familiar with the Occupiers Liability Act?

This is what Red and others are referring too.

Accepting $50 to let a camper stay the night puts a Landowners's liability into a whole new ballpark compared to allowing a hunter on for free.

Originally Posted by Red Bullets

I am just wondering?... No one has mentioned the liability involved with this type of paid access. If someone is receiving money the money becomes a contract. Contracts involve both parties being responsible to different degrees. I know contracts can be tailored to suit but still is a contract. Anyone else think this could be a factor?

Also, the lands in our province have been designated for different purposes. Land designated as agricultural cannot do certain things as far as developing the land. Every county has restrictions. Last year one county SE of red deer was flying over county properties looking for people setting up private camping spots and shutting them down.

And taxes wise...A landowner has a farm tax. If he is making money off of the land not agriculturally, it could affect his tax rates.

If paid access become legal, there would be no such thing as Cheap access fees.

First off are Liability and business/tax concerns, this costs $$$....

Then competition from around the world to own this hunting access comes into play. This will drive prices beyond what the average Albertan could afford.

It is naive to think Paid access for hunting would increase opportunity for Albertans.

Landowners could benefit financially, and lose out when desiring to access lands other than those they own.

Maybe not such good trade?

[igorot]

I think there is difference of business classification and I would assume “hunting access” will be qualified as a recreation. Farm land in the province cannot just be converted into any land use unless it has to undergo provincial and county approval. Having said that, it would not be just a matter flipping the switch, it must be a change in the legislation.

I do support landowner to be compensated but not paid access. There is just too many factors that it could go wrong. If when it comes to be a paid access, surely I would be the first one to hang my boots

[Lefty-Canuck]

As I pointed out in the other thread...the NDP is going to take their cut, so will the Federal taxes, etc...etc...

Careful what you wish for!

LC