Paid Hunting

[J D]

I am dead against paid hunting

I have seen the issues that come from paid hunting in BC. It would have more effect on Alberta do to less of public. You have areas where a lot of land is tied up by outfitters paying for exclusive right. Waterfowl hunt clubs have tied up a lot of land in areas as well so there members have exclusive rights. Most BC hunters do not depend on private land to hunt near as much as Alberta hunters so you hear about it less than you will in the US.

There are many places in the US where it is almost all lease hunting. The cost can be untouchable for many. Do to greed by some hunters, outfitters, and land owners this goes beyond just a trespass fee. It Leeds to those with money paying to keep others out so they can have their own private hunting area. If landowners in Alberta want paid hunting to help their income no doubt they will be tempted buy the highest bidder.

There are many areas in the US where wildlife conflicts have increased because of this. Increase in motor vehicle collisions, property damage, and crop damage have happened in some areas. It is a lot harder to mange wildlife through hunting regs when most lease holders are selectively harvesting for higher numbers of game.

For those who think it will help with trespass problems I would disagree. Talk to people from Ohio, Kansas, and Iowa or other states with limited public land and lease hunting. It seems to actually increase with paid hunting do to it being un affordable to many to lease land to hunt. Yes, this is ethicly/legaly wrong but it seems to tempt a lot more to step over the line when options become so limited.


For both hunters and proper wildlife management this is BAD


It is a landowners right to choose to allow hunters on there land or not. I also respect being selective on the numbers of hunter and who they give permission to. If they have issues with crop damage it should be to there benefit to allow hunters. If they have issues with crop damage and refuse all hunters it is hard to have sympathy


With the lack of public land in many parts of Alberta hunters should work on creating good relations with landowners not fighting with them if they don't want to see a future of paid hunting.

[JRsMav]

Originally Posted by AtimoseMan

JRsMav - You should get your facts straight before you post.First of all I'm a legit farmer with multy quarters and run a farming operation. Your barking up a tree with your statements. There is lots of crown land out there,I tell everyone that!!

Then I don't have, nor owe a legitimate response to you as your basis for the conclusions you are coming to are unfounded and illogical. You have lost any sense of wildlife management and are solely focusing on the old profit margin column. Once again, eliminating hunting from our province will create more problems for you as a landowner then you will ever face now, which is why your posts blow my mind. Not to mention you will be losing many great stewards of your property when your eyes and ears don't extend past your front porch. As I said, post your land to your hearts content or build a fortress around each quarter. That's your right and you should act on every right you have as a landowner, as you see fit. Don't ever fool yourself into thinking you have any ability to inhibit who hunts the animals that set up shop in or around your land.....the day you do is the day landowners such as myself, and many others, join the good fight to bury your ridiculous notions as to how our wildlife should be managed.

[Hagar]

Correct me if I am wrong,but my understanding is if access is allowed it is allowed for all to prevent things like outfitters having exclusive rights or the forming of private hunting groups or clubs.

I know these things do go on,but is that not the law.A landowner can make rules for the land that would make access "difficult" but can not make the land exclusive to a given group or interest.

[elkhunter11]

Correct me if I am wrong,but my understanding is if access is allowed it is allowed for all to prevent things like outfitters having exclusive rights or the forming of private hunting groups or clubs.

I know these things do go on,but is that not the law.A landowner can make rules for the land that would make access "difficult" but can not make the land exclusive to a given group or interest.

You are wrong. A landowner can allow whomever he chooses, to access his land, and he can deny anyone he chooses as well. He does not have to give any reasoning for who he chooses to allow or deny access to. He can choose to deny outfitters, or even a certain race, if he chooses to, and he can allow a club or a group, exclusive access, as long as he receives no compensation for that access.

[JRsMav]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

You are wrong. A landowner can allow whomever he chooses, to access his land, and he can deny anyone he chooses as well. He does not have to give any reasoning for who he chooses to allow or deny access to. He can choose to deny outfitters, or even a certain race, if he chooses to, and he can allow a club or a group, exclusive access, as long as he receives no compensation for that access.

^^^^This is correct.

And theres absolutely nothing wrong with picking and choosing who hunts and who doesn't.

[Hagar]

That is something that would have to be explained to many landowners that I know,most of them are old school.Would this not lead to the privatization of hunting,I mean if you don't have the "stuff" to be part of a "group" that you would be excluded for hunting in areas that others can.It may not involve money but comes down to the same thing.A matter of the haves and have not.

I am not a landowner but have relatives that are.I get to see first hand how people treat private land.They are some of the few that allow access to all,but the stuff that goes on is crazy. An with hardly any C.O.s they feel there is not much they can do.So bad this year I quit going out for safety reasons.

But that's of topic,sorry for the rant.

[JRsMav]

Originally Posted by Hagar

That is something that would have to be explained to many landowners that I know,most of them are old school.Would this not lead to the privatization of hunting,I mean if you don't have the "stuff" to be part of a "group" that you would be excluded for hunting in areas that others can.It may not involve money but comes down to the same thing.A matter of the haves and have not.

I am not a landowner but have relatives that are.I get to see first hand how people treat private land.They are some of the few that allow access to all,but the stuff that goes on is crazy. An with hardly any C.O.s they feel there is not much they can do.So bad this year I quit going out for safety reasons.

But that's of topic,sorry for the rant.

I get treated like a d-bag al the time by guys that I know for a fact are 'one off' hunters. These are the guys that show up once every 40 years because they drew a tag in your zone. I say no - politely. I say if you actually want to harvest our animals (meaning the publics game animals) off my land, then show some effort and stop by consecutive years and establish a relationship with me. Doesn't mean youre in the 'in' crown or not, just that youre actually wanting to get to know me before I send you off onto my land. That's why all summer I make my rounds weekly to shoot the chit with other landowners whos land I hunt on.

[leeaspell]

Where are you hunting that you don't feel safe. I hunt usually in 346/349, to really hunter heavy zones, never once have i ever felt unsafe out there.

[elkhunter11]

That is something that would have to be explained to many landowners that I know,most of them are old school.Would this not lead to the privatization of hunting,I mean if you don't have the "stuff" to be part of a "group" that you would be excluded for hunting in areas that others can.It may not involve money but comes down to the same thing.A matter of the haves and have not.

I am not a landowner but have relatives that are.I get to see first hand how people treat private land.They are some of the few that allow access to all,but the stuff that goes on is crazy. An with hardly any C.O.s they feel there is not much they can do.So bad this year I quit going out for safety reasons.

But that's of topic,sorry for the rant.

There are many reasons for picking and choosing who you allow access to hunt on your land. It could be that you allow friends and relatives. It could be people that have had permission for a long time, and have proven that they can be trusted. You might deny someone that has a reputation in the area for damaging property, or cutting fences. I know landowners that only allow license holders access, but deny all subsistence hunters access, because nobody hunts on their land, unless they are forced to obey the same rules as everyone else.
If you continue to allow access to people that abuse your property, then you have only yourself to blame.

[landowner]

Originally Posted by honda450

You actually charge people for access to your land to take pictures and wild berry picking?

If so. WOW that's the height of all greed.

No I don't, but I could it is legal in Alberta. The height of all greed would be if a photographer sold professional prints, or a "colony" of berry pickers sold berries without considering compensation to the landowner. I am amused by the posts thrown out about $10,000 dollar deer and only the rich will be able to hunt. Paid access would be what the market would bear, as much as I wish it could get that high, I doubt it could get to be a fraction of that. Remember we are talking about access not guaranteed canned hunts. But keep those posts coming as they make for good reading and scare the uninformed. There are many ways producers skirt around and bend the rules to be compensated by "legal" means. Why not call it what it is Paid Access.

[Sledhead71]

The thought of paid hunting in Alberta will be the ultimate demise of our future heritage, plain and simple... Allowing the better off to enjoy the spirit of our passion due to deeper pockets is simply wrong IMO.

For those that consider paid access to be a good thing, well you may want to think of the liability aspect as well.. Currently if one asks permission and is allowed access, well you are not liable for their actions.. Add paid into the mix and now the land owner WILL be liable as there was a monetary exchange and commercial insurance will be a requirement.

Might be a good idea to check with your insurance provider and see how much your premiums will increase with the risk associated with weapons.. You would need some serious clients to even remotely make this arrangement even close to being practical.

[honda450]

Originally Posted by landowner

But keep those posts coming as they make for good reading and scare the uninformed. There are many ways producers skirt around and bend the rules to be compensated by "legal" means. Why not call it what it is Paid Access.

Guess that's why criminals skirt the laws too. Why scare the uniformed? Cause ya can? Tell us bout your bending of the rules to suit your needs. Keep your posts coming it good reading.

[JRsMav]

Originally Posted by Sledhead71

The thought of paid hunting in Alberta will be the ultimate demise of our future heritage, plain and simple... Allowing the better off to enjoy the spirit of our passion due to deeper pockets is simply wrong IMO.

For those that consider paid access to be a good thing, well you may want to think of the liability aspect as well.. Currently if one asks permission and is allowed access, well you are not liable for their actions.. Add paid into the mix and now the land owner WILL be liable as there was a monetary exchange and commercial insurance will be a requirement.

Might be a good idea to check with your insurance provider and see how much your premiums will increase with the risk associated with weapons.. You would need some serious clients to even remotely make this arrangement even close to being practical.

bingo sled.

[elkhunter11]

Might be a good idea to check with your insurance provider and see how much your premiums will increase with the risk associated with weapons.. You would need some serious clients to even remotely make this arrangement even close to being practical.

And let's not forget that the access fees would be taxable income, that would have to be claimed. If there was an incident, and it was discovered that you were charging access fees, that you weren't claiming, you would have a lot of explaining to do when Revenue Canada found out.

[J D]

Originally Posted by landowner

No I don't, but I could it is legal in Alberta. The height of all greed would be if a photographer sold professional prints, or a "colony" of berry pickers sold berries without considering compensation to the landowner. I am amused by the posts thrown out about $10,000 dollar deer and only the rich will be able to hunt. Paid access would be what the market would bear, as much as I wish it could get that high, I doubt it could get to be a fraction of that. Remember we are talking about access not guaranteed canned hunts. But keep those posts coming as they make for good reading and scare the uninformed. There are many ways producers skirt around and bend the rules to be compensated by "legal" means. Why not call it what it is Paid Access.

From hunters I know in the US that lease land they are paying $1500 - $10 000 a year. This depends on the number of hunters on the lease, size of land, terrain and location. It can actually get crazy if others hear of a big buck shot off of a lease. This has caused some to loose their lease by an outfitter or hunter offering a stupid amount of money for the lease.

The prices are not affordable for many

Unfortunately yes there are Outfitters and hunters that have the money to drive up prices. Greed is a problem unfortunately.

[grinr]

Originally Posted by 12DLT

You can lobby the Gov. to change the laws, but be prepared for a expensive fight.

Sadly,I fear this is a battle that Joe Public hunter would lose?Who is gonna foot the bill to go up against the wealthy and politically influential cattle barons and big players?

Originally Posted by landowner

I am amused by the posts thrown out about $10,000 dollar deer and only the rich will be able to hunt. Paid access would be what the market would bear, as much as I wish it could get that high, I doubt it could get to be a fraction of that. Remember we are talking about access not guaranteed canned hunts. But keep those posts coming as they make for good reading and scare the uninformed.

You might be shocked by what "the market would bear".Take a look at any of the big deer hunting states where hunting leases and hunt clubs are the norm.....Ohio,Kansas,Illinois,Texas to name a few...all I can say is glad I don't live there,I couldn't afford to hunt.People pay well over 5 figures to kill a single trophy buck on private trophy managed ranches in TX,often pay per inch,upwards of $25-30K+ for Booners.Hunt club memberships in many states are often $2-5000 and up for the "privelage" of time-sharing leased land with other members........and this is Alberta,the wealthiest province in Canada,where many think nothing of dropping $30-40K on a sheep hunt,or the same on an African safari.....plain and simply,the best land and hunting habitat/trophy producing areas will ALL be locked up by wealthy individuals,hunt clubs,and outfitters.
Hell just last night watching Cabelas show on WildTV,they were boasting of the 70,000+ acres of private,primo Nebraska whitetail habitat that this outfitter had under lease.Thats well over 100 sections of innaccessable land for Joe Public,all for the personal enjoyment of the select few that can afford the excessive fee to thump their chest and hang a trophy on the wall,and these guys are routinely passing on 20-30 decent bucks/day.That's not helping farmers with crop loss,thats not game management,that's trophy management for the wealthy,and screw everybody else.
If paid acces in Alberta becomes a reality,then it's only fair that landowners don't receive a single nickel of my tax dollars when they're crying over crop damage from the wildlife.

[landowner]

Originally Posted by honda450

Guess that's why criminals skirt the laws too. Why scare the uniformed? Cause ya can? Tell us bout your bending of the rules to suit your needs. Keep your posts coming it good reading.

Look Sonny, I'm not bending the rules I'm saying there are people who do.Fifty per/cent of the culprits are hunters wanting an advantage, by making it under the table. I want it up front and taxed.

[landowner]

Originally Posted by Sledhead71

The thought of paid hunting in Alberta will be the ultimate demise of our future heritage, plain and simple... Allowing the better off to enjoy the spirit of our passion due to deeper pockets is simply wrong IMO.

For those that consider paid access to be a good thing, well you may want to think of the liability aspect as well.. Currently if one asks permission and is allowed access, well you are not liable for their actions.. Add paid into the mix and now the land owner WILL be liable as there was a monetary exchange and commercial insurance will be a requirement.

Might be a good idea to check with your insurance provider and see how much your premiums will increase with the risk associated with weapons.. You would need some serious clients to even remotely make this arrangement even close to being practical.

Guess what , if one asks permission and is allowed access , I can be very liable . The risk is already there, many landowners just don't know it.

[J D]

Originally Posted by landowner

Look Sonny, I'm not bending the rules I'm saying there are people who do.Fifty per/cent of the culprits are hunters wanting an advantage, by making it under the table. I want it up front and taxed.

No doubt it goes on under the table buy why promote it to be a common practice?


Maybe if there was a major price cap it could be a possibility but this would be a slippery slope.

[Sledhead71]

Originally Posted by landowner

Guess what , if one asks permission and is allowed access , I can be very liable . The risk is already there, many landowners just don't know it.

Actually you are incorrect. I know this for a fact.

There would be NO hunting on private lands during an open season if you were correct about liability.

[honda450]

Originally Posted by landowner

Look Sonny, I'm not bending the rules I'm saying there are people who do.Fifty per/cent of the culprits are hunters wanting an advantage, by making it under the table. I want it up front and taxed.

Anyhow Dad I ain't your Sonny. Where are your facts? What are 50% of the culprits and what are they doing? Yup your just making things up. You just want cash anyway you can do it. Maybe farming ain't your thing.

[albertadave]

Originally Posted by landowner

No I don't, but I could it is legal in Alberta. The height of all greed would be if a photographer sold professional prints, or a "colony" of berry pickers sold berries without considering compensation to the landowner. I am amused by the posts thrown out about $10,000 dollar deer and only the rich will be able to hunt. Paid access would be what the market would bear, as much as I wish it could get that high, I doubt it could get to be a fraction of that. Remember we are talking about access not guaranteed canned hunts. But keep those posts coming as they make for good reading and scare the uninformed. There are many ways producers skirt around and bend the rules to be compensated by "legal" means. Why not call it what it is Paid Access.

Thank you for showing your true motivation. Greed. Pure, unadulterated greed. One of the seven deadly sins, by the way. Disgusting.

[landowner]

Originally Posted by honda450

Anyhow Dad I ain't your Sonny. Where are your facts? What are 50% of the culprits and what are they doing? Yup your just making things up. You just want cash anyway you can do it. Maybe farming ain't your thing.

It takes two parties to make these deals {hence 50 %} get it ??? Maybe farming isn't my thing , maybe outfitting is .... {still don't get it ?} Don't like being called sonny, lol , just referring to another thread where you were a self appointed expert there too.

[honda450]

Originally Posted by landowner

Don't like being called sonny, lol , just referring to another thread where you were a self appointed expert there too.

OK ya got me there. But I am no self appointed expert just voicing my opinion.

[walking buffalo]

Glad to see this topic is finally getting the attention it deserves.

In less time than it takes to read this thread you can have your opinion recorded with the government.
Please fill out the workbook, the deadline is coming up quick, Jan. 15 2014.

https://www.banister.ab.ca/ssrpphase3/





I'm still behind a few pages, but to catch up a bit....

Originally Posted by AtimoseMan

I am a land owner and agree that we should be able to charge for hunting rights on our land.In the past guides used my property and charge $6500.00 for there guided white tail hunts and I never received a penny.It was sure nice to have an alfalfa field to hunt at 100% at my expense. I asked hunters to help and earn the hunting privileges and I was laughed at!! Well now I'm going to have the last laugh now!! My farm is a registered business and hunting on it is going to come with a price. How many of you on this site have businesses and give stuff for free.I sure don't get a free tire repair or a free power bill,why should you get to use my land for free when I pay for all my farm expenses and nurture the land.I keep a very rich ecosystem and habitat for the wildlife.No cattle grazing and insecticide sprays allowed. My biggest thing is I farm with wildlife and very strong in protecting there habitat!!!! In reading alot of the posts in this site is everyone is only focused on the deer,what about the ladybugs,bees and natural plants that are disappearing at alarming rates. Remember a healthy ecosystem is the most important thing and the wildlife will come.

Focusing on ALL Wildlife is why I suggest that paid access for hunting is a false leader to true conservation. Placing the burden of Wildlife and habitat conservation only on the backs of Landowners and hunters is not a fair practice. Landowners who decide to protect wildlife habitat deserve help from ALL Albertans, through direct payment conservation programs and tax incentives.

Originally Posted by landowner

I think it is selfish of both the hunters and AB govt. to think landowners should supply habitat and access for free. With the shortage of conservation officers I guess we are supposed to supply policing as well.... only in Alberta..

See above....

Has the Alberta Beef Producers come on board and voiced their support of the AFGA's request that the government double the number of F&W officers?

"Alberta Poaching An Increasing Problem, Hunting Group Wants Double The Wildlife Officers "
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/11...n_4339629.html

Originally Posted by Hagar

Correct me if I am wrong,but my understanding is if access is allowed it is allowed for all to prevent things like outfitters having exclusive rights or the forming of private hunting groups or clubs.

I know these things do go on,but is that not the law.A landowner can make rules for the land that would make access "difficult" but can not make the land exclusive to a given group or interest.

To correct your understanding, paid access is all about creating an exclusive market. In fact, several large International and US companies are already making inquiries as to if paid access is now legal here, expressing interest in investing for exclusive access for their clients.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by Sledhead71

The thought of paid hunting in Alberta will be the ultimate demise of our future heritage, plain and simple... Allowing the better off to enjoy the spirit of our passion due to deeper pockets is simply wrong IMO.

For those that consider paid access to be a good thing, well you may want to think of the liability aspect as well.. Currently if one asks permission and is allowed access, well you are not liable for their actions.. Add paid into the mix and now the land owner WILL be liable as there was a monetary exchange and commercial insurance will be a requirement.

Might be a good idea to check with your insurance provider and see how much your premiums will increase with the risk associated with weapons.. You would need some serious clients to even remotely make this arrangement even close to being practical.

Originally Posted by Sledhead71

Actually you are incorrect. I know this for a fact.

There would be NO hunting on private lands during an open season if you were correct about liability.

Landowner is correct regarding non-paid access liability. The recent decision favouring the idiot who fell off his horse on Hutterite land set a precedent.

We need the government to legislate new laws affirming no-liability access when no compensation is offered.


Currently any Landowner that charges for access now (berry picking) or under potential Paid Access for Hunting will have to follow regular business protocol including county/municipal licencing, insurance requirements and income laws. Running an operation for Paid Access will not be cheap.


And if the Landowner has a 220" net typical whitetail living on their land, then access will cost in the six figure range.

[flyguyd]

Originally Posted by grinr

Sadly,I fear this is a battle that Joe Public hunter would lose?Who is gonna foot the bill to go up against the wealthy and politically influential cattle barons.

In my readings of this thread i was under the assumption from the guys pushing paid access that this was the only way they could turn a profit. How wealthy could they be then

Most every one i know has at least one $60,000 deisel, and a big SUV or Burb for momma to go to town in. Maybe thats what they need the money for.I know im drivin an old tired 2000 dodge

[grinr]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

To correct your understanding, paid access is all about creating an exclusive market. In fact, several large International and US companies are already making inquiries as to if paid access is now legal here, expressing interest in investing for exclusive access for their clients.







......And if the Landowner has a 220" net typical whitetail living on their land, then access will cost in the six figure range.

Bingo x 2!!
Nevermind the 6fig 220" hunts,you won't get on any land with a chance at 170" deer for under 5 figures.

[PBHunter]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Landowner is correct regarding non-paid access liability. The recent decision favouring the idiot who fell off his horse on Hutterite land set a precedent.

Bingo ... talk to the Hand Hill's Hutterite Colony near Hanna, ask them if they are liable for allowing access to their land ...

[chinchaga]

To correct your understanding, paid access is all about creating an exclusive market. In fact, several large International and US companies are already making inquiries as to if paid access is now legal here, expressing interest in investing for exclusive access for their clients.


You know this, how?