"Fencelining"

[Dick284]

Originally Posted by Stinkhammer

Then the OP shouldn't sit on that bait site either. The intent for the hunter is to use the farmers field as bait then his intent is baiting as we'll. Anytime some one sits over a food or water souce the intent is to use it to attract game so I guess the intent is baiting. Of course this is rediculus just like trying to prove what a farmers intent is. In most cases there are multiple reasons they could be planting a crop, ie cover crop, grazing or just stoping the land from going back to forest.

You are so mixed up.(or maybe you like whipping things up like most trolls do)

Reasonable belief that the crop was planted for legitamite agricultural purposes, will overide any criminal process.
The crown would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the hunter knew the crop was there as a bait source... but, wait, if that happened the farmer would be charged too.
The crown would have to prove collusion between the hunter and the farmer.....in the scenario as layed out by the OP, that certainly isn't happening.

Unless somebody has any inside info on the farmer, who knows what the crop is there for, and after dressing down the OP received for exploiting the situation, I seriously doubt that the farmer would do anything outside of trying to harvest the crop and conducting life as a farmer normally would.
To do otherwise, would definatly be deserving of a "Helmet and Crayon Award."

[The Fishin Magician]

He's a farmer with 160 acres of oats. Theres thousands just like him in Alberta...

Some of you guys must get your excercise jumping to conclusions and flying off the handle. Get a grip on reality.

[wildside2014]

Originally Posted by Dick284

You are so mixed up.(or maybe you like whipping things up like most trolls do)

Reasonable belief that the crop was planted for legitamite agricultural purposes, will overide any criminal process.
The crown would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the hunter knew the crop was there as a bait source... but, wait, if that happened the farmer would be charged too.
The crown would have to prove collusion between the hunter and the farmer.....in the scenario as layed out by the OP, that certainly isn't happening.

Unless somebody has any inside info on the farmer, who knows what the crop is there for, and after dressing down the OP received for exploiting the situation, I seriously doubt that the farmer would do anything outside of trying to harvest the crop and conducting life as a farmer normally would.
To do otherwise, would definatly be deserving of a "Helmet and Crayon Award."

so when and if I harvest a buck that has been grazing on my row of apple trees I planted a few years ago and never pick fruit off of, youre saying I will be charged with baiting eh?

The only 'fencelining I have ever heard of is setting up a goose spread on the fenceline of the neighboring field that other hunters are setting up in, in order to get their sloppy seconds which yes is bushleague and bad form. anything on the other side of the owners fence has nothing ot do with him. Id personally tell him to pound sand.

[The Fishin Magician]

Originally Posted by wildside2014

so when and if I harvest a buck that has been grazing on my row of apple trees I planted a few years ago and never pick fruit off of, youre saying I will be charged with baiting eh?

The only 'fencelining I have ever heard of is setting up a goose spread on the fenceline of the neighboring field that other hunters are setting up in, in order to get their sloppy seconds which yes is bushleague and bad form. anything on the other side of the owners fence has nothing ot do with him. Id personally tell him to pound sand.

Maybe I'm missing something....you and Dick seem to be on the same side of the proverbial fence....your hostility is confusing

[The Fishin Magician]

The same goes for a few guys that have posted here...

[Dick284]

Originally Posted by wildside2014

so when and if I harvest a buck that has been grazing on my row of apple trees I planted a few years ago and never pick fruit off of, youre saying I will be charged with baiting eh?

The only 'fencelining I have ever heard of is setting up a goose spread on the fenceline of the neighboring field that other hunters are setting up in, in order to get their sloppy seconds which yes is bushleague and bad form. anything on the other side of the owners fence has nothing ot do with him. Id personally tell him to pound sand.

What was your intent when you decided to not pick the apples?
Can your intent be proven?

And the word is "could" or even "possibly"
Not "will".

Think of it like the difference between murder and man slaughter.

It all boils down to intent.

Does every person get hammered for every indiscretion whether intentional, mis understood or through pure ignorance of the law? Not a chance!
But the longer one lives with one foot over the line, or when some choose to only follow rules they agree with, is where all credibility, and logic takes a flight out the window.



I've presented facts, just because the facts are contrary to the belief of some folks the pitch forks come out.

You guys just love shooting the messenger!

[Sledhead71]

Originally Posted by Dick284

Lets actually see what is written in the Wildlife Act.

Items prohibited for hunting big game
1 Ammunition of less than .23 calibre.
2 Ammunition that contains non-expanding bullets.
3 An autoloading firearm that has a capacity of more than 5
cartridges in the magazine.
4 A shotgun having a gauge of .410 or less.
5 Any bait consisting of a food attractant, including a mineral and
any representation of a food attractant.

If the food source is there from a legitimate agricultural purpose, then you are golden.
If the crop is there for a nefarious purpose, it is baiting. The differentiation will be based on proving the intent of the person so planting the crop.

Actually Dick, Leafy is correct.

From the 2014 Alberta Big Game Regulations Definitions:


Bait - any substance that consists of a food attractant, including mineral and any representation of a food attractant.


Agricultural crops are not Bait. Be like saying someone hunting any field, hay, grains or even native grasses would be "baiting" as all species utilize these for a food source.

Be a real tough season if we all had to find fields that are bare of any food source to meet your personal views.

Any rural land owner who puts habitat in front of profit has my respect as all species benefit, not just Big Game.

[roger]

Originally Posted by LCCFisherman

Baiting is a 50lb bag, not 160 acres of oats.

ummm...no.
there is no stipulation as to volume.
anyways...
this is getting off the original topic.
the owner of the land owns the land and the proverbial airspace directly above that land, exemplar outlined it clearly.
the crown owns the land next to it and the proverbial airspace above it.
done deal.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by dmcbride

I fully agree the farmer planted the oats as part of his farming operation. It would be an expensive food plot and he might as well hire a guide somewhere else.

If he is worried about crop damage he should be happy that someone else is helping him.

As for the location of the tree stand, I think 99% of tree stands are set up to intercept animals going to feed or back to there bedding area from feeding. Most people hunt travel routes. The reason the farmer hunts is because of the oat field.

Lets reverse this. The guy on the crown land only hunts the tree stand in the morning. He is hunting it because the animals leave the field to go bed on the crown land. Should he get mad at the farmer for hunting his own land when the animals are going to bed on the crown land? Or should the farmer have to wait until the animals are more than 35 yards into his field before he can hunt them?

I am not saying that the hunter "deserves" an elk because of crop damage, most farmers accept wildlife damage as part of farming. I am saying that it would be nice to be able to get an elk on his own land.

If the farmer didn't have the field seeded there would be no trail for the hunter and no opportunity for the farmer.

How about this for a compromise, the hunter only hunts in the morning when the elk are leaving the field and the farmer only hunts the field in the evening when the elk are coming onto his land to feed.

[Dick284]

Originally Posted by Sledhead71

Actually Dick, Leafy is correct.

From the 2014 Alberta Big Game Regulations Definitions:


Bait - any substance that consists of a food attractant, including mineral and any representation of a food attractant.


Agricultural crops are not Bait. Be like saying someone hunting any field, hay, grains or even native grasses would be "baiting" as all species utilize these for a food source.

Be a real tough season if we all had to find fields that are bare of any food source to meet your personal views.

Any rural land owner who puts habitat in front of profit has my respect as all species benefit, not just Big Game.

I'm going to type slowly for those of you not understanding the concept of baiting.
If you plant a field of crop expressly to attract game animals with intent to hunt those attracted animals, you are infact baiting.
See that word expressly? If you have the intention to harvest the crop, or perhaps graze stock on it, and some unforseen circumstance prevents you from doing so
You are not baiting.
Can you understand the difference?
Because its a huge difference.
Doubt my words, then ask F&W, but put it exactly as I worded it.

I'm done trying to explain things, it boils down to the term "mens rea"

[Huntnut]

Originally Posted by Sledhead71

Agricultural crops are not Bait.

It depends. If it was planted with no INTENT of harvesting but just to attract game-that's baiting. It could be 5, 30, 160 or more acres-doesn't matter. It all depends on INTENT of which it was planted. To harvest or to attract game. Proving intent one would think could be difficult though.

[Sledhead71]

Originally Posted by Huntnut

It depends. If it was planted with no INTENT of harvesting but just to attract game-that's baiting. It could be 5, 30, 160 or more acres-doesn't matter. It all depends on INTENT of which it was planted. To harvest or to attract game. Proving intent one would think could be difficult though.

Any rural land owner who enjoys our passion has some intent of hunting his own land if certain species occupy their lands right ?

Can anyone answer me one simple question.. In the past decade, how many rural land owners have been charged and convicted of "baiting with agriculture" in the province of Alberta ?

[Huntnut]

Originally Posted by Sledhead71

Any rural land owner who enjoys our passion has some intent of hunting his own land if certain species occupy their lands right ?

Can anyone answer me one simple question.. In the past decade, how many rural land owners have been charged and convicted of "baiting with agriculture" in the province of Alberta ?

He planted it with the intent of harvesting it-not baiting-he planted it with no intent of harvesting it-baiting.

I remember awhile back a member-(Walleyes) if I remember right put up this big post about his heated deer blind and the 5 acres that they planted to oats every year to hunt deer from. he went on to say how every spring they just worked under the last years crop and planted a new one. THIS IS BAITING. When it was brought to his attention that he was baiting and it was illegal he quickly changed his story.

[dmcbride]

Originally Posted by Huntnut

He planted it with the intent of harvesting it-not baiting-he planted it with no intent of harvesting it-baiting.

I remember awhile back a member-(Walleyes) if I remember right put up this big post about his heated deer blind and the 5 acres that they planted to oats every year to hunt deer from. he went on to say how every spring they just worked under the last years crop and planted a new one. THIS IS BAITING. When it was brought to his attention that he was baiting and it was illegal he quickly changed his story.

If he is leaving it till spring it sounds like habitat improvement to me.

[The Fishin Magician]

Well it started out as a fruendly conversation. Should be locked shortly

[AlbertaWhitetail]

Why is baiting legal in SK and not in AB ?

[Dick284]

Originally Posted by AlbertaWhitetail

Why is baiting legal in SK and not in AB ?

Why is bear baiting not allowed in BC?


Game management and associated legislation is a provincial matter, that's why.

[AlbertaWhitetail]

Originally Posted by Dick284

Why is bear baiting not allowed in BC?


Game management and associated legislation is a provincial matter, that's why.

i wonder what makes them decide that, i don't know i just find it funny if you drive 300km east it becomes perfectly fine but don't do it in Alberta.

Is it maybe because SK has more animals therefore baiting them makes them easier to kill & won't effect their population much because there is so many of them & in Alberta their populations are lower. Because besides that i don't see how they decided no baiting in Alberta

[expmler]

Originally Posted by AlbertaWhitetail

i wonder what makes them decide that, i don't know i just find it funny if you drive 300km east it becomes perfectly fine but don't do it in Alberta.

Some places don't allow baiting because they think that it artificially causes more contact between numbers of deer making it easier to spread disease in the herd.

[AlbertaWhitetail]

Originally Posted by expmler

Some places don't allow baiting because they think that it artificially causes more contact between numbers of deer making it easier to spread disease in the herd.

okay that makes sense, because when im watching some of jim shockeys whitetail hunting dvds from SK they have 50+ deer come in a day & with that disease can spread easier.

[Brink]

Originally Posted by expmler

Some places don't allow baiting because they think that it artificially causes more contact between numbers of deer making it easier to spread disease in the herd.

Bingo, I asked a F&W out of curiosity what was the reason AB didn't allow baiting and his response was along those lines, funny after the season one can put out a trail camera and a big pile of oats and salt block though, if that is the reason why. Don't get me wrong I do it, helps subsidize the deer's nutrients a bit and I always like to see what bucks made it through the season.

[Joe Fehr]

This train left the tracks....
I have and will again hunt crown land bordering private land I do not have permission on. It's public lands and the landowners can't keep you off it. Myself I would have told him to pound sand. But it sounds like you've made your decision and it may save your bow season if he was patrolling the fence line.

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by Brink

Bingo, I asked a F&W out of curiosity what was the reason AB didn't allow baiting and his response was along those lines, funny after the season one can put out a trail camera and a big pile of oats and salt block though, if that is the reason why. Don't get me wrong I do it, helps subsidize the deer's nutrients a bit and I always like to see what bucks made it through the season.

Long before the CWD and other issues, baiting was not considered
ethical by the lobby groups and politicians making our laws.
Same reasons that the bear season was cancelled in Ontario and that you cannot bait bears in B.C., hunt coyotes or deer with hounds in Alberta etc.
What one group considers okay another will ram with Hellfire and Brimstone!!
Cat

[Jordan Smith]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

If you read the Wildlife Act, you don't have to actually enter occupied land, to be guilty of hunting on occupied land. If you aren't the landowner, and you shoot onto, or even over the property, without permission, you are guilty of a violation. You can also be charged if a bullet or projectile passes within 200 meters of an occupied building, even if you are farther than that from the building, when you discharge the weapon. The way the laws are written, if the projectile that you discharge enters the property, then as far as the law is concerned, you have entered the property

Just to clarify, it's 200 yards, or 183 meters.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Jordan Smith

Just to clarify, it's 200 yards, or 183 meters.

Correct you are, but if it comes down to the difference between meters and yards as to whether you are legal, you are too close to take the chance.

The point being, that you don't actually have to be on the private property, to be guilty of an offense.

[damn_missed_again]

It's crown land. This guy is just trying to run off all the competition. I have a similar situation on private land where another person who has permission there try's to intimidate and run everyone else off. I'm all about fair play so people like this bother me. Honestly I hope you get the herd bull!! Lol

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Sledhead71

I would pull out and move my stand deeper...

I had a girlfriend ask me to do that once too.

Oh. Hold it. We're talking hunting here.