hunting on road allowances

[Redfrog]

Originally Posted by expmler

Is it legal to discharge a firearm along or off of that highway? I didn't see anything in the article that wanted to restrict access.

It seems like guys want to treat undeveloped road allowances like developed roads when it comes to access but they don't want the same rules as to shooting off of public roads to apply.

But, but, I didn't say anything about shooting on 899.
Who said undeveloped road allowance should be treated like developed roads.

Check the regs re: discharging a firearm from a road or road allowance. I'm happy with the way the law is written. BTW I've never seen a case where a dog was ever charged with trespassing.

When I field trialed, I stopped for fuel. The mother earth stoner who pumped ethel at the little independent station asked where I was heading with my dog in the back of the truck. i said a dog trial.

Really? Why would tey have a dog trial?

OMG! because they caught a dog killing sheep and my dog saw it. He is lab and actually the only dog in B.C. qualified to give evidence in court.

Oh man that is so cool!!!!!!

He went and got his pal to show him my dog.

[J0HN_R1]

All this talk about "...if I owned the land that your wounded animal crossed onto, you'd never get it !", makes me wonder...

If a landowner is spiteful & pigheaded enough to NOT let a hunter retrieve an animal he/she legally shot on an unmaintained access road (or any property other than that landowners), is that landowner culpable of violating the 6th "general prohibition" of the Alberta Hunting Regulations ?

It is unlawful to:

6. abandon, destroy or allow the edible meat of any game bird or big game animal (except cougar or bear), to become unfit for human consumption.

http://www.albertaregulations.ca/hun...s/genregs.html

[expmler]

Originally Posted by Redfrog

But, but, I didn't say anything about shooting on 899.
Who said undeveloped road allowance should be treated like developed roads.

Check the regs re: discharging a firearm from a road or road allowance. I'm happy with the way the law is written. BTW I've never seen a case where a dog was ever charged with trespassing.

When I field trialed, I stopped for fuel. The mother earth stoner who pumped ethel at the little independent station asked where I was heading with my dog in the back of the truck. i said a dog trial.

Really? Why would tey have a dog trial?

OMG! because they caught a dog killing sheep and my dog saw it. He is lab and actually the only dog in B.C. qualified to give evidence in court.

Oh man that is so cool!!!!!!

He went and got his pal to show him my dog.

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.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by J0HN_R1

All this talk about "...if I owned the land that your wounded animal crossed onto, you'd never get it !", makes me wonder...

If a landowner is spiteful & pigheaded enough to NOT let a hunter retrieve an animal he/she legally shot on an unmaintained access road (or any property other than that landowners), is that landowner culpable of violating the 6th "general prohibition" of the Alberta Hunting Regulations ?



http://www.albertaregulations.ca/hun...s/genregs.html

He would be as guilty as a driver that hits and kills a deer on the highway and drives away leaving the deer to rot.

Neither the land owner or driver are engaged in hunting, so the regs don't apply

[dmcbride]

I hunt a piece of crown land that is only accessible by using a road allowance with private property on both sides. (both the private property owners do not allow hunting) I have been confronted by these land owners and have been told that I can not use the road allowance. I just smile and tell them to call the police if they think they are correct. (never been bothered by the police)

With the new proposal would I still be able to use this road allowance?

[expmler]

Originally Posted by dmcbride

I hunt a piece of crown land that is only accessible by using a road allowance with private property on both sides. (both the private property owners do not allow hunting) I have been confronted by these land owners and have been told that I can not use the road allowance. I just smile and tell them to call the police if they think they are correct. (never been bothered by the police)

With the new proposal would I still be able to use this road allowance?

Absolutely, yes.

[J0HN_R1]

Originally Posted by expmler

He would be as guilty as a driver that hits and kills a deer on the highway and drives away leaving the deer to rot.

Neither the land owner or driver are engaged in hunting, so the regs don't apply

That driver would also have the legal obligation of notifying authorities of the accident* and it's details, and IMHO a moral obligation to notify F&W or the Police/RCMP of the collision with a deer...

* - and you can raise the "above $500 in damage" issue, but lets face the facts; any collision with anything is gonna cost $500 these days.

BTW - and if the landowner is approached properly/respectfully, & still denies access for retrieval only... It wouldn't be to hard to prove to the Police that the landowner had knowledge & intent to let it spoil. And intent is 9/10 of the law... And I think the regulations apply to everybody, not just licensed hunters.

I am not a Conservation or F&W officer, nor am I overly versed in the Wildlife Act. But I'd be willing to bet that although the Government strongly discourages tresspassing,

Although there is a moral obligation to pursue wounded game and a legal requirement to ensure game is retrieved and not wasted or abandoned, these obligations do not override the legal requirement to get permission to enter private land.

I have a feeling that's why another forum-member posted that a F&W officer allowed them to retrieve game despite the landowners refusal. They (Conservation or F&W) would do this because it's the right thing to do, and Police/RCMP would not follow-up/lay charges on the landowners complaints because it's unwarranted.

I guess all I'm trying to say is that, any landowner who wouldn't/doesn't grant access for retrieval-only... Is a douchebag.

EDIT - I'm not looking forward to my first time running into one of these landowners. As a responsible (new) hunter, it's discouraging to think there's people out there trying to (basically) ruin hunting for everybody.

[pottymouth]

Originally Posted by J0HN_R1

I guess all I'm trying to say is that, any landowner who wouldn't/doesn't grant access for retrieval-only... Is a douchebag.

EDIT - I'm not looking forward to my first time running into one of these landowners. As a responsible (new) hunter, it's discouraging to think there's people out there trying to (basically) ruin hunting for everybody.

Get permission, and hunt on huge quarters and you will never run into problems. Try to be a douchebag, and hunt on road allowances, and you get what you deserve. Must likely, the guys who hunt these road allowances were denied access to the private land surrounding it!

Again...If you have permission on the adjoining Quarter, I highly doubt you will be spending your time on the road allowance!

[seven0eight]

Montana landowners were successful in using this type of deal to effectively lock up access to huge areas of public land that was surrounded by their properties. Hopefully this isn't the 'thin edge of the wedge' leading to something similar.
In any instance it seems to me that the onus is on us as hunters to oppose any revocation of rights on public land but also to act like proper sportsmen and not give anyone the ammunition they need to push for changes like this.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by J0HN_R1

That driver would also have the legal obligation of notifying authorities of the accident* and it's details, and IMHO a moral obligation to notify F&W or the Police/RCMP of the collision with a deer...

* - and you can raise the "above $500 in damage" issue, but lets face the facts; any collision with anything is gonna cost $500 these days.

BTW - and if the landowner is approached properly/respectfully, & still denies access for retrieval only... It wouldn't be to hard to prove to the Police that the landowner had knowledge & intent to let it spoil. And intent is 9/10 of the law... And I think the regulations apply to everybody, not just licensed hunters.

I am not a Conservation or F&W officer, nor am I overly versed in the Wildlife Act. But I'd be willing to bet that although the Government strongly discourages tresspassing,



I have a feeling that's why another forum-member posted that a F&W officer allowed them to retrieve game despite the landowners refusal. They (Conservation or F&W) would do this because it's the right thing to do, and Police/RCMP would not follow-up/lay charges on the landowners complaints because it's unwarranted.

I guess all I'm trying to say is that, any landowner who wouldn't/doesn't grant access for retrieval-only... Is a douchebag.

EDIT - I'm not looking forward to my first time running into one of these landowners. As a responsible (new) hunter, it's discouraging to think there's people out there trying to (basically) ruin hunting for everybody.

If you are the responsible hunter you say you are I would suggest you talk to landowners in the area you plan to hunt beforehand and find out if they would let you retrieve an animal if you don't have permission to hunt the land.

Then you can make an informed decision when you go to pull the trigger on an animal.

Land owners are under no obligation to grant you access and calling them douche bags is a good way to ensure you don't receive it.

BTW, your contempt for land owners rights is quite evident and that is a major cause of denied access for more than just you.

[elkhunter11]

BTW - and if the landowner is approached properly/respectfully, & still denies access for retrieval only... It wouldn't be to hard to prove to the Police that the landowner had knowledge & intent to let it spoil. And intent is 9/10 of the law... And I think the regulations apply to everybody, not just licensed hunters.

Your thinking is very wrong, unless the landowner is the one that shot the animal, he can't be charged for letting it spoil. As far as the police are concerned, they could care less about the Wildlife Act, they will refer you to F&W. Then if F&W decides to respond, you can try to convince them that you shot the animal on land that you had legal access to, while the landowner tries to convince them that the animal was on private property when you shot it. If the evidence supports your story, F&W can retrieve the animal for you, but if the evidence makes it appear that either you or that animal was on private property when you shot it, you could end up facing charges.

[Puma]

This is yet another attempt by Rockyview County to stop hunting / shooting.

A couple years ago, remember they (RVC) proposed a ban on hunting or shooting on parcels of under a 1/4 section that was well hidden in their proposed "Community Standards bylaws" ?

A lot of land owners in RVC wrote and visited and got this stopped.

This proposal is in response to one very vocal person who doesn't like people hunting "near" his land.

Instead of you guys debating this, get off your butts and write your MLA, your local representative, F&W and whomever else you can think of.

Puma

[TBark]

Good info expmler,
U seen up on the terms and the proposed changes.
Big diff between road allowance (non hyway) and undeveloped road allowance.
Proposal does not seem to be preventing people from using it, just not hunting it.
There should be different classes of access on these non developed road allowances with hunting rules to apply to each IMO.
Private land one side, both sides, crown land beyond etc.
Some shotgun only, some no hunting til crown land is reached etc.

TBark

[winger7mm]

Originally Posted by expmler

Hey, I have no problem with anyone ground swatting birds. I understand what you are saying about losing opportunity. It is an unfortunate fact that bad actors spoil it for decent law abiding hunters.

As an aside, if a hunter is hunting a road allowance and downs a flying bird on private land he doesn't have permission to hunt, would sending his dog in to retrieve the bird be a trespass?

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

[expmler]

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

Very interesting, thanks.

[elkhunter11]

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

Did anyone seriously expect a different answer? What's next, trying to shoot a bird on private land without permission, and then trying to retrieve it with a fishing rod and hook, while claiming that you aren't trespassing?

[dmcbride]

Would adjacent land owners be able to hunt the road allowances? I've seen land down south where the only habitat is the road allowance.

If they are going to make the public land no hunting it has to be for everybody IMO.

[bowshot]

This is the result of one landowner that is miffed because guys have permission on the land beyond his, and access through the right of way. Personalities clash and his feeling has been damaged. He is making a lot of noise and is getting the grease. Simple.

Terry

[expmler]

Originally Posted by bowshot

This is the result of one landowner that is miffed because guys have permission on the land beyond his, and access through the right of way. Personalities clash and his feeling has been damaged. He is making a lot of noise and is getting the grease. Simple.

Terry

The changes would still allow those hunters to use that road allowance to access the land beyond his.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by dmcbride

Would adjacent land owners be able to hunt the road allowances? I've seen land down south where the only habitat is the road allowance.

If they are going to make the public land no hunting it has to be for everybody IMO.

The law would apply to everyone including land owners.

[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?

[dmcbride]

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?

I agree with you.

[dmcbride]

Originally Posted by expmler

The law would apply to everyone including land owners.

Thank you.

[wwbirds]

We are also sure there are idiots out there with guns and hunting equipment.
How do we know this my neighbor told me! He has a road allowance through his property to Weed Lake. He is probably also one of the landowners trying to shut down a road allowance. While he used to allow hunting on all of his properties. Like anywhere else a few idiots ruined it for everyone. Once you are 1/2 mile down the road allowance you cant be seen from the highway so a few each year park on road allowance and then go hunt on his property. He or his son kicks them out or calls the RCMP almost weekly. A few others are too lazy to walk along shore so drive their trucks through his fields when they are wet causing ruts or when there are crops in them. He was driving past his round bales one day when he noticed a truck parked in his field so going to investigate he found an archer with his child with a target on one of his round bales and when he asked them what they were doing they claimed they target practicing with their bows and weren't hurting anything.
He gave permisson to some dog trainers 3 years ago to train in his pasture with the strict conditon they did not go in the adjacent crop field. Guess where he found them training the dog in the "cover" of his barley crop that afternoon. There are a minority of idiots that ruin it for everyone else but that minority seems to be growing at an alarming rate.
Dont even ask him for permission anymore as he just turns everyone down.

[dmcbride]

Originally Posted by wwbirds

We are also sure there are idiots out there with guns and hunting equipment.
How do we know this my neighbor told me! He has a road allowance through his property to Weed Lake. He is probably also one of the landowners trying to shut down a road allowance. While he used to allow hunting on all of his properties. Like anywhere else a few idiots ruined it for everyone. Once you are 1/2 mile down the road allowance you cant be seen from the highway so a few each year park on road allowance and then go hunt on his property. He or his son kicks them out or calls the RCMP almost weekly. A few others are too lazy to walk along shore so drive their trucks through his fields when they are wet causing ruts or when there are crops in them. He was driving past his round bales one day when he noticed a truck parked in his field so going to investigate he found an archer with his child with a target on one of his round bales and when he asked them what they were doing they claimed they target practicing with their bows and weren't hurting anything.
He gave permisson to some dog trainers 3 years ago to train in his pasture with the strict conditon they did not go in the adjacent crop field. Guess where he found them training the dog in the "cover" of his barley crop that afternoon. There are a minority of idiots that ruin it for everyone else but that minority seems to be growing at an alarming rate.
Dont even ask him for permission anymore as he just turns everyone down.

I can understand your neighbours frustration.

The same things can be said about any road in Alberta. There's tresspassers and poachers everywhere, but shouting hunting down on public land isn't the answer.

[expmler]

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?

The proposed change does not prevent anyone from using the road allowance to access land. It only disallows shooting along or off of it.

Considering that the road allowance is 20 meters wide, are you really losing much.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by expmler

The law would apply to everyone including land owners.

That's not right. The law would apply to all BUT the adjacent landowners and those he/she gives permission to hunt on this public land.

[coreya3212]

Originally Posted by expmler

The proposed change does not prevent anyone from using the road allowance to access land. It only disallows shooting along or off of it.

Considering that the road allowance is 20 meters wide, are you really losing much.

Losing any ground is too much. Are you an anti hunter?

[expmler]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

That's not right. The law would apply to all BUT the adjacent landowners and those he/she gives permission to hunt on this public land.

That is not right, the land owner cannot refuse access or grant access to the road allowance.

It is NOT his land, it belongs to the county and any laws that apply to county land apply to everyone equally, adjacent land owners included.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by expmler

That is not right, the land owner cannot refuse access or grant access to the road allowance.

It is NOT his land, it belongs to the county and any laws that apply to county land apply to everyone equally, adjacent land owners included.

Ugh....

I didn't say anything about access, I said the law would not apply to everyone equally in terms of being allowed to hunt on this public land.