hunting on road allowances

[expmler]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

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.

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.

[coreya3212]

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.

I thought the proposed law states you may not hunt the road allowance if you do not have permission to also hunt ajacent land? So a landowner ajacent to the allowance can permit himself or others to hunt there.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by coreya3212

I thought the proposed law states you may not hunt if you do not have permission to also hunt ajacent land? So a landowner ajacent to the allowance can permit himself or others to hunt there.

If you are on a road allowance and do not have permission to hunt the adjacent land where would you be shooting?

[coreya3212]

Edited my above comment.

[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

[coreya3212]

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

What about a .410 for grouse? All the appropriate rules for gun safety and trespassing etc are all in place already.

You are In favor of closing public lands to hunting. You decide what that makes you. The if you should or should not argument is a different subject.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by coreya3212

What about a .410 for grouse? All the appropriate rules for gun safety and trespassing etc are all in place already.

You are In favor of closing public lands to hunting. You decide what that makes you. The if you should or should not argument is a different subject.

I would not be opposed to that exception, would you be willing to limit the hunting to grouse shot on the ground within the road allowance with a .410 or rimfire?

[coreya3212]

Originally Posted by expmler

I would not be opposed to that exception, would you be willing to limit the hunting to grouse with a .410?

No, because the reason I oppose the change is because I don't see a need to restrict hunt able public land. All the arguments for this change that I have read are covered in existing law. If I shoot Unsafely down a 15 ft wide cut line I can be charged with an offence. If I shoot over private land with out permission I can be charged with an offence. If I enter property I don't have permission to enter for any reason, I can be charged with an offence. It's all covered folks. It seems to me this law is proposed by landowners looking to add 20 m to their portfolio and keep others out. Not right in my mind.

[TBark]

I'm all for exceptions, if u read my earlier post.
Rim fire, shotgun, passage to crown land beyond, no problem. I'm all for safety.
No 20 m strip of land between private land is ethically / properly huntable with a high power rifle.

TBark

[expmler]

Originally Posted by coreya3212

No, because the reason I oppose the change is because I don't see a need to restrict hunt able public land. All the arguments for this change that I have read are covered in existing law. If I shoot Unsafely down a 15 ft wide cut line I can be charged with an offence. If I shoot over private land with out permission I can be charged with an offence. If I enter property I don't have permission to enter for any reason, I can be charged with an offence. It's all covered folks. It seems to me this law is proposed by landowners looking to add 20 m to their portfolio and keep others out. Not right in my mind.

And there we have a major reason why we see so much denied access. The attitude that says screw the concerns of those "greedy land owners" and to he!! with any reasonable compromise.

[coreya3212]

I would probably agree that it's a poor choice to expects put a big game animal down in 20 m guaranteed. I wouldn't do it. But currently, if I shot a deer on a road allowance and it entered private property before expiring, and I could not get permission to collect it, I would not be guilty of anything. Perhaps that should be where efforts are made to ensure smarter choices.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by coreya3212

I would probably agree that it's a poor choice to expects put a big game animal down in 20 m guaranteed. I wouldn't do it. But currently, if I shot a deer on a road allowance and it entered private property before expiring, and I could not get permission to collect it, I would not be guilty of anything. Perhaps that should be where efforts are made to ensure smarter choices.

The proposed law would allow you to take that deer and not worry about it running onto adjacent land because you would already have permission.

[coreya3212]

Originally Posted by expmler

And there we have a major reason why we see so much denied access. The attitude that says screw the concerns of those "greedy land owners" and to he!! with any reasonable compromise.

What compromise? You simply want to be able to say no if you want. All the options would be the landowners. The same as that landowners private land. Nice compromise. You should be the next leader of the PC party.... I don't like it so it stops cause I say so.

[coreya3212]

Originally Posted by expmler

The proposed law would allow you to take that deer and not worry about it running onto adjacent land because you would already have permission.

Only at the say so of a landowner... Of course he could also say no and I would have no chance at the deer at all. Perhaps the proposed change should be to allow a 30 meter collection right of way on either side of the road allowance regardless of the landowners wishes. That's should make retrieval easier and less of an ethical conundrum. More hunting opportunity for all. That's a good compromise. I mean it's only 30 m. How much are you losing.

[CanuckShooter]

Originally Posted by expmler

It would also protect the animals responsible hunters with permission have been given exclusive access to hunt, on that private property you don't have permission for.

That is very true, but normally I hear complaints of the outfitters tying up all the private land access not the average joe hunter. This proposal would just tie up the entire tract of land from public use.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by coreya3212

Only at the say so of a landowner... Of course he could also say no and I would have no chance at the deer at all. Perhaps the proposed change should be to allow a 30 meter collection right of way on either side of the road allowance regardless of the landowners wishes. That's should make retrieval easier and less of an ethical conundrum. More hunting opportunity for all. That's a good compromise. I mean it's only 30 m. How much are you losing.

And the result will be people shooting an animal on that 30m strip of the landowner's property. And what if the animal falls 35 m inside the fence, it's only an extra 5m? How about 40m, it's only 5m more?

[338Bluff]

Originally Posted by dmcbride

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.

It's not like they are shutting down the forestry, we are talking about a thin strip of land that is likely gated, forested, and usually at a dead end. I have a quarter that is described as such and the gate is often cut because some jerk thinks there must be a road allowance there somewhere.

We have every right to have that gate up and it has been there for 40 years and allowed by the county. There is no road and nothing to access behind. Some cracker barrel lawyers seem convinced that loopholes and grey areas are there to be exploited. If we still had cows in there in November it would be a bigger issue than just an annoyance.

I do understand that we need to have access to crown areas and lakes. Hopefully, some middle ground can be found.

[coreya3212]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

And the result will be people shooting an animal on that 30m strip of the landowner's property. And what if the animal falls 35 m inside the fence, it's only an extra 5m? How about 40m, it's only 5m more?

That might happen yes. It was not a serious suggestion.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by coreya3212

What compromise? You simply want to be able to say no if you want. All the options would be the landowners. The same as that landowners private land. Nice compromise. You should be the next leader of the PC party.... I don't like it so it stops cause I say so.

The compromise is to limit the hunting to upland shot with a 410 or rim
fire for not pursuing the change in the law that may prohibit all hunting on the road allowance.

So in effect you could add " for the purpose of hunting game birds with a 410 shotgun or rim fire rifle only" to the existing law. Thus preserving the one practical type of hunting done on these road allowances.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by expmler

The compromise is to limit the hunting to upland shot with a 410 or rim
fire for not pursuing the change in the law that may prohibit all hunting on the road allowance.

So in effect you could add " for the purpose of hunting game birds with a 410 shotgun or rim fire rifle only" to the existing law. Thus preserving the one practical type of hunting done on these road allowances.

Why only 410? How is a 410 so different from a 28 gauge, or a 20 gauge, or even a 12 gauge? They all throw shot about the same distance.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by coreya3212

Only at the say so of a landowner... Of course he could also say no and I would have no chance at the deer at all. Perhaps the proposed change should be to allow a 30 meter collection right of way on either side of the road allowance regardless of the landowners wishes. That's should make retrieval easier and less of an ethical conundrum. More hunting opportunity for all. That's a good compromise. I mean it's only 30 m. How much are you losing.

I could agree to that if the retrieval was on foot. Would you go along with that?

[coreya3212]

Originally Posted by expmler

The compromise is to limit the hunting to upland shot with a 410 or rim
fire for not pursuing the change in the law that may prohibit all hunting on the road allowance.

So in effect you could add " for the purpose of hunting game birds with a 410 shotgun or rim fire rifle only" to the existing law. Thus preserving the one practical type of hunting done on these road allowances.

Let's back up for a minute. What is the big problem you have with the law as it stands currently?

[coreya3212]

Originally Posted by expmler

I could agree to that if the retrieval was on foot. Would you go along with that?

Actually no I wouldnt. The landowner should have every right to decide who comes on his property for any reason, so I wouldn't support my own idea. I was being intentionally silly.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Why only 410? How is a 410 so different from a 28 gauge, or a 20 gauge, or even a 12 gauge? They all throw shot about the same distance.

It was the example he used prior. I would not oppose any gauge shotgun if the bird fell on the road allowance and the shot did not travel onto private land.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by coreya3212

Let's back up for a minute. What is the big problem you have with the law as it stands currently?

Right now the law allows for the scenario of a hunter shooting at a game animal with a high powered rifle on the road allowance without permission to hunt the adjacent land, which could mean lost game due to a refusal by the land owner to grant access for retrieval.

Something you said wasn't a wise choice and something you wouldn't do.

So rather than change the law to what is being proposed and cutting off game bird hunting opportunities we add game bird hunting to the existing law and limit the need for permission to big game hunting.

That way there would be no change for game bird hunters and big game hunters would need permission to hunt the adjacent land before shooting an animal on the road allowance. So if he had prior permission, that would eliminate the chances of an animal being shot and not retrieved because of lack of permission.

[elkhunter11]

Right now the law allows for the scenario of a hunter shooting at a game animal with a high powered rifle on the road allowance without permission to hunt the adjacent land, which could mean lost game due to a refusal by the land owner to grant access for retrieval.

That situation is not at all unique to road allowances. The same thing can happen if you hunt along the boundary of a large parcel of crown land, and the animal runs onto private property. Or it can also happen if you are hunting on one landowners land, who allows you access, but the animal runs onto adjoining land owned by another landowner that doesn't allow hunters access.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

That situation is not at all unique to road allowances. The same thing can happen if you hunt along the boundary of a large parcel of crown land, and the animal runs onto private property. Or it can also happen if you are hunting on one landowners land, who allows you access, but the animal runs onto adjoining land owned by another landowner that doesn't allow hunters access.

I realize that, but in the case of these 20 meter wide road allowances I would say that there is a 95% chance that the animal will die on private land and I think my idea would eliminate all instances of game not being retrieved because of refusal by a land owner.

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by expmler

Right now the law allows for the scenario of a hunter shooting at a game animal with a high powered rifle on the road allowance without permission to hunt the adjacent land, which could mean lost game due to a refusal by the land owner to grant access for retrieval.

Something you said wasn't a wise choice and something you wouldn't do.

So rather than change the law to what is being proposed and cutting off game bird hunting opportunities we add game bird hunting to the existing law and limit the need for permission to big game hunting.

That way there would be no change for game bird hunters and big game hunters would need permission to hunt the adjacent land before shooting an animal on the road allowance. So if he had prior permission, that would eliminate the chances of an animal being shot and not retrieved because of lack of permission.

Makes perfect sense to Talking moose..... I am not one to advocate even less big game hunting opportunitys, but this rings truth and eliminates possible headaches.

[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.

[Carson13]

This is exactly the problem!