hunting on road allowances

[expmler]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Bull.......


I'm not sure if you are ignorant of the proposed regulation change or if you are purposely trying to fool people into believing you in order gain support for your position....

The resolution clearly states that hunting on these public lands will be controlled by the adjacent landowners.

IMO, Giving private citizens control of hunting rights to Pubic lands is a dangerous precident.


From Rocky View County - Resolution 9-14S
http://www.aamdc.com/attachments/art...0Submitted.pdf

"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties urge the Government of Alberta to amend Section 51 of the Wildlife Act so as to prohibit the discharge of a firearm from or cause a projectile from a firearm to pass along or across an undeveloped road allowance unless a person has consent of owner(s) and/or occupant(s) of land(s) located directly adjacent to the undeveloped road allowance."

OK, I understand your concern.

In my view the way the law is written now it makes possible the scenario where a hunter shoots an animal on the 20 meter wide road allowance and the animal ends up dying on private property. Then access to retrieve the animal is denied resulting in an unrecovered animal.

If the hunter had to obtain permission from the adjacent land owner before hand he could hunt the road allowance and retrieve any animal he shot. If he was refused permission then you could say the land owner is controlling public land, but in reality what would be the point of shooting an animal on the road allowance and have to leave it because you had no permission to enter the adjacent land.

So without change game will continue to be wasted in the name of not wanting to set some kind of "dangerous precedent "

[dmcbride]

Originally Posted by expmler

OK, I understand your concern.

In my view the way the law is written now it makes possible the scenario where a hunter shoots an animal on the 20 meter wide road allowance and the animal ends up dying on private property. Then access to retrieve the animal is denied resulting in an unrecovered animal.

If the hunter had to obtain permission from the adjacent land owner before hand he could hunt the road allowance and retrieve any animal he shot. If he was refused permission then you could say the land owner is controlling public land, but in reality what would be the point of shooting an animal on the road allowance and have to leave it because you had no permission to enter the adjacent land.

So without change game will continue to be wasted in the name of not wanting to set some kind of "dangerous precedent "

Not 100% sure, but I beleive if one was to shoot an animal on the road allowance and it did expire on the private land and the land owner denied access one only has to call F&W and they will retrieve the animal. Assuming one was shooting in a safe direction and the animal was shot on the road allowance there is nothing the adjacent landowner can say about it.

[coreya3212]

Originally Posted by dmcbride

Not 100% sure, but I beleive if one was to shoot an animal on the road allowance and it did expire on the private land and the land owner denied access one only has to call F&W and they will retrieve the animal. Assuming one was shooting in a safe direction and the animal was shot on the road allowance there is nothing the adjacent landowner can say about it.

I am not sure that's the case. I have heard arguments that state f and w can retrieve without consent and I have read they can not... You will get stories supporting both as the truth. Personally, I don't think they should be allowed to retrieve without consent. I still feel landowners should have carte blanch to allow or not allow anyone ( with out a warrant) permission to access their land for any reason. I feel that if someone wants to run the gauntlet of hunting on the allowance without permission on adjacent land, said hunter better be darn near certain of the bang flop. I would actually support a charge where someone's animal made it onto privat land in the allowance scenario and they were not allowed to collect it. They should be held accountable for theirchoice to hunt their. That's a different argument tho.....

[expmler]

Originally Posted by dmcbride

Not 100% sure, but I beleive if one was to shoot an animal on the road allowance and it did expire on the private land and the land owner denied access one only has to call F&W and they will retrieve the animal. Assuming one was shooting in a safe direction and the animal was shot on the road allowance there is nothing the adjacent landowner can say about it.

So we would have a scenario where a hunter would shoot a deer on a road allowance adjacent to land posted NO TRESSPASSING and when the deer runs onto the posted land and dies, the hunter would use the government to negate the land owners right to control who enters his property.

[Nait Hadya]

Originally Posted by expmler

So we would have a scenario where a hunter would shoot a deer on a road allowance adjacent to land posted NO TRESSPASSING and when the deer runs onto the posted land and dies, the hunter would use the government to negate the land owners right to control who enters his property.

the same way the oil companies enter private land?

[expmler]

Originally Posted by Nait Hadya

the same way the oil companies enter private land?

Do oil companies pay a fee to the land owner?

[Nait Hadya]

Originally Posted by expmler

Do oil companies pay a fee to the land owner?

can the landowner deny access?

[expmler]

Originally Posted by Nait Hadya

can the landowner deny access?

No, but the oil company recognizes the value of that access and is willing to pay the landowner for that access.

If you want hunters to have the same access rights as oil companies then hunters can negotiate an access fee with the land owner.

I think many land owners would have no problem with one hunter paying a fee for exclusive access.

[Nait Hadya]

Originally Posted by expmler

No......

So the hunter and the oil companies both want something that that farmer does not own. The oil company can access and pay for any damages they do to retrieve their oil, the hunter should be able to access and pay for any damages they do, in the process of dragging out a deer, no?

[coreya3212]

Originally Posted by expmler

Do oil companies pay a fee to the land owner?

And here it is.... Paid hunting all around... Good grief. And you have the nerve in a previous post to insinuate that I called you " greedy landowners" as if it would be an insult to you...Pathetic. i get what you are all about now. Enough said.

[Big Sky]

Interesting thread.

So the scenario is:
A hunter shoots an animal from a road allowance and the animal dies on private land that adjoins the road allowance.
The landowner refuses to grant permission to the hunter to retrieve the animal.
F&W attempts to gain access to retrieve the animal but the landowner refuses.

So, since the animal is on private property I would assume the animal is in the possession of the landowner.
The animal is going to go to waste.

Can the landowner be charged under
41(1) A person who has killed or is in possession of a game bird
or big game animal, other than a mountain lion or bear, shall not
(a) abandon any of its flesh that is fit for human consumption,
(b) destroy any such flesh, or
(c) allow any such flesh to become unfit for human
consumption.

Food for thought.

[Hydro1]

Hypothetical or not, hunters paying for access is the most asinine idea in this thread.

Big sky, would the land owner not be exempt as he/she did not contribute to the animals death?

[Redfrog]

Originally Posted by expmler

No, but the oil company recognizes the value of that access and is willing to pay the landowner for that access.

If you want hunters to have the same access rights as oil companies then hunters can negotiate an access fee with the land owner.

I think many land owners would have no problem with one hunter paying a fee for exclusive access.

i could see this from where we started, but it still took 5 pages to get here.

I'm out of this discussion. I've heard this bleating before.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by coreya3212

And here it is.... Paid hunting all around... Good grief. And you have the nerve in a previous post to insinuate that I called you " greedy landowners" as if it would be an insult to you...Pathetic. i get what you are all about now. Enough said.

I am not advocating for paid hunting, I was simply pointing out that if you think hunters should have the same access rights as oil companies, then they should act the same as oil companies.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Big Sky

Interesting thread.

So the scenario is:
A hunter shoots an animal from a road allowance and the animal dies on private land that adjoins the road allowance.
The landowner refuses to grant permission to the hunter to retrieve the animal.
F&W attempts to gain access to retrieve the animal but the landowner refuses.

So, since the animal is on private property I would assume the animal is in the possession of the landowner.
The animal is going to go to waste.

Can the landowner be charged under
41(1) A person who has killed or is in possession of a game bird
or big game animal, other than a mountain lion or bear, shall not
(a) abandon any of its flesh that is fit for human consumption,
(b) destroy any such flesh, or
(c) allow any such flesh to become unfit for human
consumption.

Food for thought.

If it's food it's a red herring. NO!, the landowner can't be charged for violating that regulation unless he is the one that killed the animal, or if he actually took possession of the animal. Having a dead animal laying on your property, is not being in possession of that animal.The same people that believe that the landowner can be charged under that section, usually also believe that the landowner can't hunt on his own land if he has it posted "no hunting".

[Big Sky]

Originally Posted by Hydro1

Big sky, would the land owner not be exempt as he/she did not contribute to the animals death?

The Act just says that you can either have killed the animal or be in possession of the animal.
Since the animal is on the farmer's land and they know that it is there, would it not make sense that they are in possission of it?

[coreya3212]

Originally Posted by expmler

I am not advocating for paid hunting, I was simply pointing out that if you think hunters should have the same access rights as oil companies, then they should act the same as oil companies.

Please be clear. Are you In favour or against paid access for the purpose of hunting in alberta?

[expmler]

Originally Posted by Big Sky

Interesting thread.

So the scenario is:
A hunter shoots an animal from a road allowance and the animal dies on private land that adjoins the road allowance.
The landowner refuses to grant permission to the hunter to retrieve the animal.
F&W attempts to gain access to retrieve the animal but the landowner refuses.

So, since the animal is on private property I would assume the animal is in the possession of the landowner.
The animal is going to go to waste.

Can the landowner be charged under
41(1) A person who has killed or is in possession of a game bird
or big game animal, other than a mountain lion or bear, shall not
(a) abandon any of its flesh that is fit for human consumption,
(b) destroy any such flesh, or
(c) allow any such flesh to become unfit for human
consumption.

Food for thought.

What if the land owner eats it.

Also, would that mean the land owner could be charged for any wildlife that dies on his property simply because it is on his land and he is deemed in possession of it?

[expmler]

Originally Posted by coreya3212

Please be clear. Are you In favour or against paid access for the of purpose of hunting in alberta?

Not in favor of paid access, not in favor of outfitters locking up tracts of private land.

I am in favor of land owners right to control who has access to his land and the right to deny said access for any reason.

[Big Sky]

Originally Posted by expmler

What if the land owner eats it.

Don't know. Like I said food for thought.
My guess would be that the landowner would not be charged.

Originally Posted by expmler

Also, would that mean the land owner could be charged for any wildlife that dies on his property simply because it is on his land and he is deemed in possession of it?

Like roadkill and the like? Again, I doubt that charges would apply.

[Hydro1]

Originally Posted by Big Sky

The Act just says that you can either have killed the animal or be in possession of the animal.
Since the animal is on the farmer's land and they know that it is there, would it not make sense that they are in possission of it?

I guess thats where the arguement could be made. Does having the deer on your land mean your in possesion of it or???

[Hydro1]

Originally Posted by expmler

Not in favor of paid access, not in favor of outfitters locking up tracts of private land.

I am in favor of land owners right to control who has access to his land and the right to deny said access for any reason.

Its funny how when people think of paid access they immediately think outfitters.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by Hydro1

I guess thats where the arguement could be made. Does having the deer on your land mean your in possesion of it or???

If that argument was to be made, would we have to make a distinction between a dead deer and a live deer?

[urcayuse]

Hunting road allowances is just backdoor access to private land. It's a loophole that looks like it is being closed. As well it should.

[coreya3212]

Originally Posted by urcayuse

Hunting road allowances is just backdoor access to private land. It's a loophole that looks like it is being closed. As well it should.

Backdoor access?? What does this mean?

[Nait Hadya]

What's the width of your average gun range? Length? Proximity to homes and farm land?

[foothills26]

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.

I happen to be one of these landowners with land on both sides of the road allowance. People are always driving down the road allowance as far as they can and then going hunting. Its not bird hunting either. I do not allow other hunters as I have cattle on my land. It is frustrating because in most cases the animal they are going to shoot is not going to drop in its tracks as well as are they shooting perfectly straight down the road allowance or are they shooting into my place without knowing where their bullet is going? I think in cases like this I should be allowed to say no hunting on this road allowance. Also to get to the crown land in the next quarter over there is a nice county road that borders the crown land on one side and my land on the other so really I feel that there is probably no reason at all for anyone to go hunting on this road allowance. Like a lot of people of said it takes a few bad incidents to get landowners mad at all hunters.

[bobalong]

Originally Posted by Hydro1

I guess thats where the arguement could be made. Does having the deer on your land mean your in possesion of it or???

It means you have total control of who gets access to go get it, that would mean the boneheads that intentionally shoot it from the road allowance knowing very well they do not have permission to access the land to go get it. Probably one of the biggest causes of bad hunter/landowners out there.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by coreya3212

And here it is.... Paid hunting all around... Good grief. And you have the nerve in a previous post to insinuate that I called you " greedy landowners" as if it would be an insult to you...Pathetic. i get what you are all about now. Enough said.

So far you have accused me of being anti hunter, being greedy and supporting paid access when I have not expressed either sentiment.

I can only assume that the reason for this is that you have an irrational hate for land owners which leads you to believe that anyone supporting land owner rights is doing it for financial gain. You took a comparison on the way oil companies gain access and the way hunters gain access as a land owner wanting paid access.

When I did answer your question directly and clarified my position you chose not to respond.

Why?

Do you believe that I am lying because in your mind all land owners are greedy anti hunters?

[coreya3212]

Originally Posted by foothills26

I happen to be one of these landowners with land on both sides of the road allowance. People are always driving down the road allowance as far as they can and then going hunting. Its not bird hunting either. I do not allow other hunters as I have cattle on my land. It is frustrating because in most cases the animal they are going to shoot is not going to drop in its tracks as well as are they shooting perfectly straight down the road allowance or are they shooting into my place without knowing where their bullet is going? I think in cases like this I should be allowed to say no hunting on this road allowance. Also to get to the crown land in the next quarter over there is a nice county road that borders the crown land on one side and my land on the other so really I feel that there is probably no reason at all for anyone to go hunting on this road allowance. Like a lot of people of said it takes a few bad incidents to get landowners mad at all hunters.

Each of the bad incidents you have cited as possibilities have consequences already. Anyone who does these things would not be a hunter, they would be a poacher, so why would hunters get a bad name with landowners? would you you mind if I came to your land and told you what you are no longer allowed to do on it? My reasons need not be good ones , I can just say it frustrates me that you raise cattle, and I think in cases like this I should be able to say no cattle raising here anymore.m you can still live on the land and do most of the things you have always done, but just no more cattle. K. Sound good sir?

Think about this , you are angry because people go down the road allowance in a vehicle and then hunt on crown land? Good lord the horror....doing what is completely within their right.....how dare they .