hunting on road allowances

[coreya3212]

Originally Posted by expmler

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?

I asked questions and you gave answers ... You want a rseponse, ok, here it is . Thank you for your answers, I hope they are the truth. My questions are in response to some of the statements you made and i wanted clarification. YOU brought up being compensated cause oil companies compensate.

Also I asked if you were an anti hunter, I didn't accuse you I don't think. You want to close public land to hunting...so I asked.

[dmcbride]

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.

Is it any different than retrieving a car that went off the road in bad weather and ended up on posted private property?

Road allowance aside, would you let someone on your land to retrieve wildlife if it was shot, say 1/2 mile away from an adjacent property?

Personally I wouldn't hunt big game on a road allowance, but I do not like the the reasoning for this new proposal. (Game could expire on private land) To me it is setting up the frame work to make a huge buffer zone on any crown land bordering private land because game could expire on the private land. This potentially could cause a lot of public land to be not hunt able.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by Nait Hadya

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?

It would probably work that way if the gov't was to legislate hunter access the same way they legislate oil company access.

I think that most land owners would prefer to refuse access to oil companies and avoid the damage they cause to the land and habitat rather than accept the fees they pay.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by dmcbride

Is it any different than retrieving a car that went off the road in bad weather and ended up on posted private property?

Road allowance aside, would you let someone on your land to retrieve wildlife if it was shot, say 1/2 mile away from an adjacent property?

Personally I wouldn't hunt big game on a road allowance, but I do not like the the reasoning for this new proposal. (Game could expire on private land) To me it is setting up the frame work to make a huge buffer zone on any crown land bordering private land because game could expire on the private land. This potentially could cause a lot of public land to be not hunt able.

I would say a car going off the road in bad weather is an accident, far different than intentionally shooting an animal standing on a 20 meter wide strip of land with no permission to enter land on either side.

If the hunter wounded the deer on private land he had permission to hunt or public land and he tracked it to my land, I would give him permission to retrieve it if he asked before he entered my land. If I found him tracking it or retrieving it without my permission, I would ask him to leave immediately.

The slippery slope is not a valid reason to oppose a change effecting a specific area.

It's kind of like opposing installing a traffic light at a high volume intersection for fear that it could lead to traffic lights at ALL intersections.

Or opposing increasing the amount of tags in one zone being increased for fear of it leading to increasing tags in all zones.

I have a quarter of land that borders a quarter of wildlife lands on the east side of the wild life lands. People access the wildlife lands from the west side and work their way east. I have never had anyone ask for permission to enter my land in case they have to retrieve an animal prior to actually wounding that animal.

I live 1 mile south of the wildlife lands.

Is it too much to ask that they request permission just in case they need it prior to hunting the wildlife lands?

Do you think I am being unreasonable if I found someone tracking an animal on my land without permission and kicked them off?

[brendan's dad]

I have never hunted a specific "road allowance" but I do hunt the bow zone and some small parcels (10-20 acres) In all my hunting locations I have or attempted to, gain "retrival" only permssion from all adjaccent properties. I explain where I have permission and ask for retrieval only access. This resulted in access to no less than 4 more areas with full permission. Usually the response is "Well if John has given you permission, than you can go ahead and hunt my land." I believe this is what should happen but unfortunately it is not occurring.

But if we are talking about change, then this is my purposal.

I think that it shoud be all or nothing. If the land owner does not want hunting on the allowance, an application is made and the area is closed to all huntng by all individuals including the land owner. I think the application needs to meet a certain creteria to be approved., ie, livestock, proximity to residence, etc..

or

If he land owner wants hunting to occur than he also has to understand that it is access for everyone and he required to grant retrieval only permission for all animals legally shot on the allowance regardless of who shoots it. The hunter would still need to notify the owner prior to entry by at minimum a written note at the primary residence door.

I agreed with Elkhunter11's set of rules he established minus the "attitude clause" Some people are just terrible at interpersonal skills and will always come off gruff. Owner still would have the right to deny access until Fish and Wildlife attended if he suspects poaching or any other issues.

[TBark]

Seems some folks just want to discharge a high power rifle on URA because it's legal to do so. No sense of what's safe or ethical, then worry about the animal later, real classy.
I would however not support that MD proposal the way it's written.
It is either safe to shoot on a 20m strip or it isn't.
Landowner saying who can shoot or who can't doesn't not make it any safer.
So amendments or exceptions will need to added.
Shotgun or 22 only, for everyone. Foot traffic only, just,some examples.
Hell, I'd support this in my MD if it was worded properly.

TBark

[coreya3212]

the slippery slope reasoning for opposing the change is easily as relevant as any of the reasons given thus far in favor of the proposed change... again, because it might be unsafe is not a reason....there are already rules when discharging a firearm that need to be adhered to in the name of safety.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by coreya3212

the slippery slope reasoning for opposing the change is easily as relevant as any of the reasons given thus far in favor of the proposed change... again, because it might be unsafe is not a reason....there are already rules when discharging a firearm that need to be adhered to in the name of safety.

I don't think the county cited safety as a reason for the proposed change.

Are you opposed to the minimum caliber requirement in the hunting regs?

Aren't they in place because using anything less might cause excessive wounding and loss of game.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by brendan's dad

I have never hunted a specific "road allowance" but I do hunt the bow zone and some small parcels (10-20 acres) In all my hunting locations I have or attempted to, gain "retrival" only permssion from all adjaccent properties. I explain where I have permission and ask for retrieval only access. This resulted in access to no less than 4 more areas with full permission. Usually the response is "Well if John has given you permission, than you can go ahead and hunt my land." I believe this is what should happen but unfortunately it is not occurring.

But if we are talking about change, then this is my purposal.

I think that it shoud be all or nothing. If the land owner does not want hunting on the allowance, an application is made and the area is closed to all huntng by all individuals including the land owner. I think the application needs to meet a certain creteria to be approved., ie, livestock, proximity to residence, etc..

or

If he land owner wants hunting to occur than he also has to understand that it is access for everyone and he required to grant retrieval only permission for all animals legally shot on the allowance regardless of who shoots it. The hunter would still need to notify the owner prior to entry by at minimum a written note at the primary residence door.

I agreed with Elkhunter11's set of rules he established minus the "attitude clause" Some people are just terrible at interpersonal skills and will always come off gruff. Owner still would have the right to deny access until Fish and Wildlife attended if he suspects poaching or any other issues.

In your first proposal do you mean the landowner could not hunt the road allowance only or that he would not be able to hunt his own private land as well?

[expmler]

I have land on both sides of the road allowance for a 3 mile stretch. The longest shot would be maybe 80 yds off of the road in either direction, much less on most of it. The land is posted NO HUNTING on both sides of the road. My yard is on the same road.

I allow hunting to most who ask.

Some ask to hunt the land. I grant permission

Others ask for permission to shoot from the road. They are not interested in hunting on the land but would like to be ale to shoot onto the land if the opportunity presents itself. I grant permission.

Every day there is a steady stream of vehicles slowly driving by for the first hour and last hour of legal shooting time.

I know for a fact that some of these hunters have no permission to hunt on my land.

So when the hunter without prior permission shows up in my yard and says "I just shot a deer and I want to go pick him up" should I treat him the same as the others that were respectful enough to ask for prior permission?

Or does it make me a Douche for treating him with the same lack of respect as he showed me by saying "NO"

I already know coreya3212 thinks I am a Douche because I own land. LOL

[Nait Hadya]

While they might be requesting no hunting on an URA, changing the law would require that they look at all possible scenarios. That would likely include lease roads which are prime hunting tracts for many Albertans. If a treed section of land 20 m wide is too dangerous to hunt, a wide open road allowance with high traffic volume and workers travelling it should be considered much more dangerous.

[coreya3212]

Originally Posted by expmler

I have land on both sides of the road allowance for a 3 mile stretch. The longest shot would be maybe 80 yds off of the road in either direction, much less on most of it. The land is posted NO HUNTING on both sides of the road. My yard is on the same road.

I allow hunting to most who ask.

Some ask to hunt the land. I grant permission

Others ask for permission to shoot from the road. They are not interested in hunting on the land but would like to be ale to shoot onto the land if the opportunity presents itself. I grant permission.

Every day there is a steady stream of vehicles slowly driving by for the first hour and last hour of legal shooting time.

I know for a fact that some of these hunters have no permission to hunt on my land.

So when the hunter without prior permission shows up in my yard and says "I just shot a deer and I want to go pick him up" should I treat him the same as the others that were respectful enough to ask for prior permission?

Or does it make me a Douche for treating him with the same lack of respect as he showed me by saying "NO"

I already know coreya3212 thinks I am a Douche because I own land. LOL

OK, what did the county site as the reasons then? Some folks here are commenting about it being unsafe, I extrapolated. I have already commented on the "mights" involved with where a animal might expire.....

Expmler,what is it to you if folks cruise the road allowance at first and last light, as long as they are not on your property?

The guy that shot the deer and wants to collect it, do what you like, its your call of course. I assume the guy in the hypothetical shot it legally on the allowance.

I don't think you are a douche because you are a landowner. I think you are a douche for not having your facts straight. I am a landowner. I have a URA bordering my land. I raise cattle. I am a hunter and don't see the need to curb opportunity to others.

[walking buffalo]

Exempler and Coreya,

I posted a link to the County resolution,

Which gives the reasons for the proposed change.

[coreya3212]

Resolution 9-14S
Hunting from Undeveloped Road Allowances
Rocky View County
Three-fifths Majority Required
Endorsed by Central District
WHEREAS hunting from undeveloped road allowances has been identified as a matter of enforcement
and public safety by concerned county residents; and
WHEREAS hunting from undeveloped road allowances within rural areas may result in trespass and
conflict with adjacent landowners; and
WHEREAS hunting from undeveloped road allowances that may result in trespass on adjacent lands and
other potential negative consequences needs to be addressed; and
WHEREAS hunting within the Province of Alberta is regulated through the provisions of the Wildlife Act;
and
WHEREAS current legislation governing hunting does not prohibit access to undeveloped road
allowances for hunting, or discharging of a firearm along or across an undeveloped road allowance; and
WHEREAS legislation currently does not address hunting from undeveloped road allowances and the
need to obtain permission from an adjacent landowner(s);
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.
Member Background
Municipalities are often approached by resident(s) seeking support and guidance on how to control and
/or stop an issue of specific concern; in this case, that concern is the need to prohibit the discharge of
firearms from or across an undeveloped road allowance. A Rocky View County resident, with support
from other members of the public, has been actively advocating for legislative change restricting hunting
from undeveloped road allowances; and, in doing so, has been in contact with and has received
information from a variety of sources, including hunting based interest organizations. The county
understands that these groups include Hunting for Tomorrow and Alberta Game Management Advisory
Group (AGMAG). The county has not been in direct contact with these organizations.
Hunting within the Province of Alberta is regulated through the provisions of the Wildlife Act and is
typically enforced by Fish and Wildlife Officers. Municipalities, through Community Peace Officers, have
limited authority regarding the enforcement of hunting regulations; however, municipalities do have
authority under the Municipal Government Act to adopt bylaws addressing firearms and no shooting
zones.
Amendments proposed by this resolution are not intended to address the merits of hunting from
undeveloped road allowances, or to restrict hunting from undeveloped road allowances, but rather to
address one of the key issues associated with hunting from an undeveloped road allowance, the matter of
trespass onto adjacent lands, which is a matter of public safety. Of concern for many agricultural
landowners is trespass by hunters onto adjacent private land, where permission to hunt has not been
obtained. Specific concerns include hunters trespassing onto agricultural lands to retrieve a wounded or
dead animal. This could result in many forms of conflict, including but not limited to scaring or injuring
livestock, and damage to fences. Trespass onto private lands by hunters may result in conflict between a
private landowner and a hunter when the hunter is retrieving a dead animal from private lands and
permission has not been obtained from that landowner to be on the land. Amendments to the Wildlife Act
addressing the need to obtain consent from a landowner(s) or occupant(s) of lands adjacent to an
undeveloped road allowance would enable an enforcement action to be taken, when or if conflict occurs.
Other sections of the Wildlife Act address hunting in proximity to residences and buildings (Section 52),
protection of livestock (Section 29) and hunting at night (Section 28), in addition of other matters.
Amendments to the Wildlife Act have been limited to Section 51, addressing hunting from undeveloped
road allowances and the need to obtain permission from adjacent landowners.
The definition of a “road” for purposes of hunting is contained within Section 51 of the Wildlife Act, as
follows:
51 (1) A person shall not discharge a firearm from, or cause a projectile from a firearm to pass along or
across,
(a) a highway designated as a provincial highway under the Highways Development and
Protection Act , or
(b) any other road that is paved, oiled, graded or regularly maintained in a municipal district or
prescribed area.
(2) In subsection (1), “highway” or “road” includes, as well as the travelled portion of it, a width of land
on either side of the travelled portion, including the inner two sides of a divided highway, that
extends,
(a) if there is a fence parallelling the travelled portion that separates the adjacent lands from the
travelled portion, to the fence,
(b) if there is an identifiable ditch alongside the travelled portion and there is no fence separating
the travelled portion from the adjacent lands, to the edge of the ditch that is further from the
travelled portion, or
(c) if there is no such fence or ditch, to a distance of 20 feet from the edge of the travelled portion,
and also includes the whole of the remaining area between the 2 travelled portions of a divided
highway at any location where the distance between the 2 nearest points on the innermost edges
of the 2 travelled portions is less than 200 yards.
(3) Subsection (1)(b) does not apply to a person hunting game birds with a shotgun under the
authority of a licence authorizing the hunting of game birds.
AAMDC Background
The AAMDC has no active resolutions directly related to this issue.


It seems safety is mentioned a few times after all. I also bolded a section, where they claim without the proposed change, there is no way for action to be taken when or if conflict occurs if someone were to trespass to collect a game animal on private property without permission. here that everyone, apparently currently there are no consequences of trespassing to collect game downed on private property......

[expmler]

Originally Posted by coreya3212

OK, what did the county site as the reasons then? Some folks here are commenting about it being unsafe, I extrapolated. I have already commented on the "mights" involved with where a animal might expire.....

Expmler,what is it to you if folks cruise the road allowance at first and last light, as long as they are not on your property?

The guy that shot the deer and wants to collect it, do what you like, its your call of course. I assume the guy in the hypothetical shot it legally on the allowance.

I don't think you are a douche because you are a landowner. I think you are a douche for not having your facts straight. I am a landowner. I have a URA bordering my land. I raise cattle. I am a hunter and don't see the need to curb opportunity to others.

I believe they said the practice was unethical.

It doesn't bother me at all, I just stated it to illustrate what goes on. We both know that some of those folks are hunting that 3 miles and willing to chance killing something and not being able to recover it or worse killing something and trespassing to retrieve it.

What would you do in that hypothetical?

So your land is open to any and all to hunt on or do you refuse some the opportunity to hunt it?

What facts did I have wrong?

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by coreya3212

It seems safety is mentioned a few times after all. I also bolded a section, where they claim without the proposed change, there is no way for action to be taken when or if conflict occurs if someone were to trespass to collect a game animal on private property without permission. here that everyone, apparently currently there are no consequences of trespassing to collect game downed on private property......

There are current regulations that clearly state it is illegal to tresspass to collect downed game. Tresspassing automatically invalidates the authority of the hunting licence, thus all game possessed in the course of tresspassing is illegal and carries significant penalties including hunting licence suspensions and fines beyond the tresspassing charges.

[coreya3212]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

There are current regulations that clearly state it is illegal to tresspass to collect downed game. Tresspassing automatically invalidates the authority of the hunting licence, thus all game possessed in the course of tresspassing is illegal and carries significant penalties including hunting licence suspensions and fines beyond the tresspassing charges.

yes that is my point, its already illegal as is everything anyone has cited as a reason for this proposed change to take place....

I wrote this in my best sarcastic tone... but again it don't translate through the key board...

[brendan's dad]

Originally Posted by expmler

In your first proposal do you mean the landowner could not hunt the road allowance only or that he would not be able to hunt his own private land as well?

Just the road allowance. Land owner can do what he please on his titled land including giving permission to others. But if he feels that the general public can't hunt the road allowance then he shouldn't either.

But if he allows others or hunts on his own land then it would be difficult for him to argue that it is unsafe for hunting on the road allowance when he thinks it is safe to hunt on his side of the fence.

[coreya3212]

Originally Posted by expmler

I believe they said the practice was unethical.

It doesn't bother me at all, I just stated it to illustrate what goes on. We both know that some of those folks are hunting that 3 miles and willing to chance killing something and not being able to recover it or worse killing something and trespassing to retrieve it.

What would you do in that hypothetical?

So your land is open to any and all to hunt on or do you refuse some the opportunity to hunt it?

What facts did I have wrong?

The way I read it, it sounded like you had a issue with folks travelling the allowance.

In the hypothetical, if shot on the allowance, and died on my side, I would allow them to get it. If I thought they shot it on my property, I would call the authorities.

I have lived here 4 years, and only had one individual ask permission and I granted it. I later saw him bring someone else on the land and decided if he asks again I would deny him.

I guess if the facts are I think you are a douche because you are a landowner, then I guess I must think I am also a douche cause I am a landowner..... man it sucks to be a douche....

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by coreya3212

yes that is my point, its already illegal as is everything anyone has cited as a reason for this proposed change to take place....

Absolutely.

This is a case of eliminating public land hunting rights (except for adjacent landowners) despite the existing regulations that already make any of the concerns illegal.

What is interesting to note from the resolution is that there are remarks that hunter groups such as HFT have been advised of the concern, giving the impression that they are on board with the proposal. In truth these groups are opposed to the proposal. Political misrepresentation of the facts for the sake of optics.

[coreya3212]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Absolutely.

This is a case of eliminating public land hunting rights (except for adjacent landowners) despite the existing regulations that already make any of the concerns illegal.

What is interesting to note from the resolution is that there are remarks that hunter groups such as HFT have been advised of the concern, giving the impression that they are on board with the proposal. In truth these groups are opposed to the proposal. Political misrepresentation of the facts for the sake of optics.

I read that as well. My first thought was ya right....cause the guys proposing the change say so....

[expmler]

Originally Posted by coreya3212

The way I read it, it sounded like you had a issue with folks travelling the allowance.

In the hypothetical, if shot on the allowance, and died on my side, I would allow them to get it. If I thought they shot it on my property, I would call the authorities.

I have lived here 4 years, and only had one individual ask permission and I granted it. I later saw him bring someone else on the land and decided if he asks again I would deny him.

I guess if the facts are I think you are a douche because you are a landowner, then I guess I must think I am also a douche cause I am a landowner..... man it sucks to be a douche....

In the hypothetical, I don't think it is fair to the hunters who do things right by asking for permission beforehand to reward the slob by granting him permission after the fact.

So in effect you would curb that hunters opportunity.

[MathewsArcher]

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.

The landowner already has these rights under current legislation, the proposed legislation by the municipalities is therefor redundant and not required. Simply ask for the current legislation to be enforced.

[coreya3212]

Originally Posted by expmler

In the hypothetical, I don't think it is fair to the hunters who do things right by asking for permission beforehand to reward the slob by granting him permission after the fact.

So in effect you would curb that hunters opportunity.

its only the right way cause you say so....ethics are funny like that. you calling him a slob, and yet he has done zero wrong. Again assuming he shot said animal on the allowance.

how would I be curbing the opportunity ? I am not quite following.

[Nait Hadya]

Many of Alberta's Natural Areas border on private land. Many of them are accessed via URAs. Theoretically, how far would a hunter have to be from the property line and what would be the difference of being 1 meter, 21 meters or a 100 meters?

[expmler]

Originally Posted by MathewsArcher

The landowner already has these rights under current legislation, the proposed legislation by the municipalities is therefor redundant and not required. Simply ask for the current legislation to be enforced.

Did you read the actual proposal?

[expmler]

Originally Posted by coreya3212

its only the right way cause you say so....ethics are funny like that. you calling him a slob, and yet he has done zero wrong. Again assuming he shot said animal on the allowance.

how would I be curbing the opportunity ? I am not quite following.

He may have done nothing wrong legally speaking, but by killing an animal with no permission to retrieve it before hand he has in reality wasted a game animal. Hence the slob label.

The hunter asks for opportunity to hunt on your land a second time and you refuse. You have curbed his opportunity, haven't you?

[expmler]

Originally Posted by Nait Hadya

Many of Alberta's Natural Areas border on private land. Many of them are accessed via URAs. Theoretically, how far would a hunter have to be from the property line and what would be the difference of being 1 meter, 21 meters or a 100 meters?

Not sure I understand you're question.

[coreya3212]

Originally Posted by expmler

He may have done nothing wrong legally speaking, but by killing an animal with no permission to retrieve it before hand he has in reality wasted a game animal. Hence the slob label.

The hunter asks for opportunity to hunt on your land a second time and you refuse. You have curbed his opportunity, haven't you?

That's a stretch my friend....if we are going to spiral into stupidity I suppose I am done here. I wrote a letter to the mountain view gazette and my division councillor expressing my disappointment at councils decision to support this ridiculous proposal.

[MathewsArcher]

Originally Posted by expmler

Did you read the actual proposal?

Sure have, your point?