ACA Land Bow Hunting Only

[MK2750]

Came across some ACA that has signs saying that the use of firearms is strictly prohibited and it is for bow hunting only.

I found this strange as there is no obvious reason for this restriction.

Has anyone else found land like this and if so was a reason given for restriction to bows only?

Does the ACA even have the authority to make law for certain areas or restrict access to certain groups without reason?

If this is okay can we soon expect fly fishing only on some waters and other elitist intrusion to our enjoyment of ACA land?

I am not a bow hunter and do not appreciate being restricted from land that I have contributed to the purchase of. I have nothing against bow hunting but do not feel in any way that they are "fairer" or "more ethical" in their pursuit of game. In fact I believe an argument to the contrary is more logical and that bow hunters already enjoy enough preferential treatment with their early seasons and access to tags.

It would be very interesting to see what a person could be charged with if they ventured on to this land with a firearm. A person certainly wouldn't be trespassing or breaking any game laws.

What is the groups thoughts on this?

[Dean2]

Suggest you phone ACA and ask them. Could well be land that was donated with that restriction but just a guess on my part. I am sure they can provide an explanation, may not be to your liking but at least you will know what they are doing and why.

[huntwat]

E-mail ACA. See why they give preferential treatment of a certain hunting group. Maybe they have a good reason. I would hope that ACA wouldn't be fracturing hunters.

[MK2750]

I will certainly be making contact but obviously not today.

[Dean2]

Let us know what you find out please. Would be interested in knowing the reason too.

[CNP]

It is private land is it not? The government provides the ACA with a mandate to operate insofar as to achieve specific outcomes. As said in post #2, a donors wishes may be responsible for the restriction. I wouldn't rifle hunt on that land, considering that the risk in doing so could lead to the loss of all hunting privileges on that land. Not all ACA site allow hunting. Of 777 conservation sites, 660 allow hunting. Move on...

[MK2750]

Originally Posted by CNP

It is private land is it not? The government provides the ACA with a mandate to operate insofar as to achieve specific outcomes. As said in post #2, a donors wishes may be responsible for the restriction. I wouldn't rifle hunt on that land, considering that the risk in doing so could lead to the loss of all hunting privileges on that land. Not all ACA site allow hunting. Of 777 conservation sites, 660 allow hunting. Move on...

The land is owned and was purchased by ACA. I have no problem with no hunting allowed, I have a big problem with special access to certain groups of outdoorsmen.

I would like to know who exactly would have the authority to revoke my hunting privileges on this land. I don't bow hunt so it would be a moot point anyway.

[SLH]

Originally Posted by MK2750

Came across some ACA that has signs saying that the use of firearms is strictly prohibited and it is for bow hunting only.

I found this strange as there is no obvious reason for this restriction.

Has anyone else found land like this and if so was a reason given for restriction to bows only?

Does the ACA even have the authority to make law for certain areas or restrict access to certain groups without reason?

If this is okay can we soon expect fly fishing only on some waters and other elitist intrusion to our enjoyment of ACA land?

I am not a bow hunter and do not appreciate being restricted from land that I have contributed to the purchase of. I have nothing against bow hunting but do not feel in any way that they are "fairer" or "more ethical" in their pursuit of game. In fact I believe an argument to the contrary is more logical and that bow hunters already enjoy enough preferential treatment with their early seasons and access to tags.

It would be very interesting to see what a person could be charged with if they ventured on to this land with a firearm. A person certainly wouldn't be trespassing or breaking any game laws.

What is the groups thoughts on this?

What site is it?

[Pasc43]

They obviously have a reason.. maybe they have volunteers out a lot, fixing fence, picking trash, doing bio studies and they don't want bullets wizzing around.. What ever the reason it shouldn't matter, have some respect child.

[Buckhorn2]

I did quick search of albertadiscover site and ab conservation site. I can find no words related to bow hunting only, no rifle, firearms or different combinations of words related to restrictions on bow huntin vs rifle hunting. So since the OP is keeping his conservation site a secret honey hole. None of us are able to call or email to find out a reason so this will become yet another thread on here that has no outcome no answers. If the rule was placed on that site follow it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pasc43]

No such site exsists. Just another troll.

[brendan's dad]

Originally Posted by MK2750

Came across some ACA that has signs saying that the use of firearms is strictly prohibited and it is for bow hunting only.

I found this strange as there is no obvious reason for this restriction.

Has anyone else found land like this and if so was a reason given for restriction to bows only?

Does the ACA even have the authority to make law for certain areas or restrict access to certain groups without reason?

If this is okay can we soon expect fly fishing only on some waters and other elitist intrusion to our enjoyment of ACA land?

I am not a bow hunter and do not appreciate being restricted from land that I have contributed to the purchase of. I have nothing against bow hunting but do not feel in any way that they are "fairer" or "more ethical" in their pursuit of game. In fact I believe an argument to the contrary is more logical and that bow hunters already enjoy enough preferential treatment with their early seasons and access to tags.

It would be very interesting to see what a person could be charged with if they ventured on to this land with a firearm. A person certainly wouldn't be trespassing or breaking any game laws.

What is the groups thoughts on this?

I took the time to read the entire thread, and what I find ironic is that you have been asked no less than 4 times what ACA you are referring to. Why is this ironic?????? Because your whole grip is the fact is you don't have access to this area for rifle hunting, yet when several people have asked you for the site info you have no desire to share. Who is the entitled one now?

[wind drift]

From a legal perspective, I believe that there is no empowerment, aside from designation of lands as no firearms discharge zones or special designations under the Wildlife Act, administered by the province, which would give the ACA the legal authority to prohibit hunting in an open season with firearms. Unless there is some special legal designation for the place, assuming access is granted, all legal means of hunting would be allowable. That said, assuming the property is owned by the ACA, if the ACA or a designated agent or a tenant with rights wished someone to leave for any reason, they would be within their rights to do so. As others have indicated, it’s necessary to know what place is referred to, to really understand the situation.

In truth, it might really only be an ask, not a tell.

[MK2750]

Originally Posted by wind drift

From a legal perspective, I believe that there is no empowerment, aside from designation of lands as no firearms discharge zones or special designations under the Wildlife Act, administered by the province, which would give the ACA the legal authority to prohibit hunting in an open season with firearms. Unless there is some special legal designation for the place, assuming access is granted, all legal means of hunting would be allowable. That said, assuming the property is owned by the ACA, if the ACA or a designated agent or a tenant with rights wished someone to leave for any reason, they would be within their rights to do so. As others have indicated, it’s necessary to know what place is referred to, to really understand the situation.

In truth, it might really only be an ask, not a tell.

Strictly prohibited is the language IIRC

[brendan's dad]

Originally Posted by wind drift

From a legal perspective, I believe that there is no empowerment, aside from designation of lands as no firearms discharge zones or special designations under the Wildlife Act, administered by the province, which would give the ACA the legal authority to prohibit hunting in an open season with firearms. Unless there is some special legal designation for the place, assuming access is granted, all legal means of hunting would be allowable. That said, assuming the property is owned by the ACA, if the ACA or a designated agent or a tenant with rights wished someone to leave for any reason, they would be within their rights to do so. As others have indicated, it’s necessary to know what place is referred to, to really understand the situation.

In truth, it might really only be an ask, not a tell.

The enforcement would come from the Wildlife Act Section 38 or the Petty Trespass Act. The landowner (ACA in this case) can give permission for persons to enter the property for certain activities. In this case the signage clearly states that persons using firearms to hunt in that particular ACA are not permitted. So if found doing so, it would constitute trespassing under either Act. This is no different than a farmer calling F&W to report someone hunting on his land without permission.

[wind drift]

Originally Posted by brendan's dad

The enforcement would come from the Wildlife Act Section 38 or the Petty Trespass Act. The landowner (ACA in this case) can give permission for persons to enter the property for certain activities. In this case the signage clearly states that persons using firearms to hunt in that particular ACA are not permitted. So if found doing so, it would constitute trespassing under either Act. This is no different than a farmer calling F&W to report someone hunting on his land without permission.

Thanks. I understand that; however, I question if the ACA can legally specify the weapons used to hunt during an open season, assuming access to hunt is granted. Hunting is the activity. The weapon is only the tool.

[brendan's dad]

Originally Posted by wind drift

Thanks. I understand that; however, I question if the ACA can legally specify the weapons used to hunt during an open season, assuming access to hunt is granted. Hunting is the activity. The weapon is only the tool.

No different then setting a "foot access only" provision. ATV"s may be legal for use in that area, but not authorized for use on the property by order of the landowner. In this circumstance, firearm use is not authorized by the landowner.

The landowner can say "red boots" are not authorized on the land. So if a person is found wearing red boots on the property, they could be charged with trespassing.

[MK2750]

Originally Posted by brendan's dad

I took the time to read the entire thread, and what I find ironic is that you have been asked no less than 4 times what ACA you are referring to. Why is this ironic?????? Because your whole grip is the fact is you don't have access to this area for rifle hunting, yet when several people have asked you for the site info you have no desire to share. Who is the entitled one now?

Why should I have to tell you a spot to ask a question about ACA land and restricted access?

[brendan's dad]

Originally Posted by MK2750

Why should I have to tell you a spot to ask a question about ACA land and restricted access?

I am a hunter, maybe I would like to try the site. Isn't that your whole argument that everyone should have an opportunity to enjoy the site?

[MK2750]

Originally Posted by brendan's dad

I am a hunter, maybe I would like to try the site. Isn't that your whole argument that everyone should have an opportunity to enjoy the site?

Fill your boots

[brendan's dad]

Originally Posted by MK2750

Fill your boots

Hunters helping Hunters eh? Good Job!

[MugEye]

Op you said what if your lake becomes a fly fish only lake . I would say to that, if that’s the rules then I would buy a fly rod and learn . So what no problem! Just a different way to enjoy the wild

[MK2750]

Originally Posted by MugEye

Op you said what if your lake becomes a fly fish only lake . I would say to that, if that’s the rules then I would buy a fly rod and learn . So what no problem! Just a different way to enjoy the wild

I only fly fish but want everyone to enjoy the wild without some self righteous snob telling them how they should do it.