Canadian Land Access Systems????

[Albertadiver]

Originally Posted by fish_e_o

as we didn't know ours were

Really??? What's the backstory on that one? I'd be livid.

[BenC68]

Originally Posted by fish_e_o

they may not know that their properties have been listed. as we didn't know ours were

They are aware of it now, and looking into the matter

[fish_e_o]

Originally Posted by Albertadiver

Really??? What's the backstory on that one? I'd be livid.

i'm not totally up on it but through the grapevine. some properties were posted on the site as places that people could reserve to hunt. these places are no hunting and were used without permission on their site.

[CMichaud]

I am not impressed with the ACA. Didn't know much about them but this makes me lose respect for them and I will not offer them any support going forward.

Re the liability, I do not see how CLAS mitigates land owner responsibility/liability. The co-founder is quoted as saying that the landowners are facing greater liability.

From their webpage however

If you are a Land-Owner, you understand and agree that CLAS does not act as an insurer or as your contracting agent or broker. If a Land-User sends an Access Request and accesses your Property, any agreement you enter into with such Land-User is between you and the Land-User and CLAS is not a party to it.


You acknowledge and agree that, as a Land-Owner, you are responsible for your own acts and omissions and are also responsible for the acts and omissions of any individuals who reside at or are otherwise present at your Property at your request or invitation, excluding the Land-User (and the individuals the Land-User invites to the Property, if applicable).

It is each Land-Owner’s responsibility to obtain any required and/or appropriate insurance for their Properties. Each Land-Owner is responsible for reviewing any and all insurance policies that you may have for your Properties carefully, and, in particular, to ensure that you are familiar with and understand any exclusions to, and any deductibles that may apply for, such insurance policy, including, but not limited to, whether or not your insurance policy will cover the acts or omissions of Land-Users (and the individuals the Land-User invites to the Property, if applicable) while on your Property.

[hillbillyreefer]

Originally Posted by R3illy

doesn't clas provide signs for farmers fields? I thought I saw a photo or two of that. Isnt the farmer then advertising paid access to their land?

If a farmer cant tell a person to go to clas website i assume they cant advertise either?

As a landowner on clas id be worried that an angry hunter makes a complaint against you for referring them to clas' s website.. if thats what it takes for f&w to act we all know someones going to make that claim(even if it didn't happen).

If any angry hunter causes me problems, ALL HUNTERS will be denied access. Problem solved.

Don't ever think that landowners don't talk amongst ourselves. Urban people generally aren't well aquainted with their neighbors, trust me rural landowners that have lived next to each other for generations are very well known by one another. Once problems are created for one the word spreads and landowners will push back.

[R3illy]

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

If any angry hunter causes me problems, ALL HUNTERS will be denied access. Problem solved.

Don't ever think that landowners don't talk amongst ourselves. Urban people generally aren't well aquainted with their neighbors, trust me rural landowners that have lived next to each other for generations are very well known by one another. Once problems are created for one the word spreads and landowners will push back.

I dont doubt what you say. I'm just thinking of all the crazy lease holders posts from upset hunters who want to escalate things to the extreme. This will happen with clas land owners as well.

I see this being a valuable tool but its a thinly veiled attempt at skirting the laws. No different then air bnb or uber. This attempt at skirting laws is comical when the website refers to contractors checking in on the website. Why would a contractor youve hired pay to use their site?

Im genuinely curious why the rcmp or f&w are taking a wait and see approach as opposed to making it clear whats allowed. The city of edmonton had no problems stopping a friends start up from operating in a semi grey area.

The question any landowner should be asking f&w is can anyone use the same setup to self manage their own land.

[Albertadiver]

Originally Posted by CMichaud

I am not impressed with the ACA. Didn't know much about them but this makes me lose respect for them and I will not offer them any support going forward.

Re the liability, I do not see how CLAS mitigates land owner responsibility/liability. The co-founder is quoted as saying that the landowners are facing greater liability.

From their webpage however

If you are a Land-Owner, you understand and agree that CLAS does not act as an insurer or as your contracting agent or broker. If a Land-User sends an Access Request and accesses your Property, any agreement you enter into with such Land-User is between you and the Land-User and CLAS is not a party to it.


You acknowledge and agree that, as a Land-Owner, you are responsible for your own acts and omissions and are also responsible for the acts and omissions of any individuals who reside at or are otherwise present at your Property at your request or invitation, excluding the Land-User (and the individuals the Land-User invites to the Property, if applicable).

It is each Land-Owner’s responsibility to obtain any required and/or appropriate insurance for their Properties. Each Land-Owner is responsible for reviewing any and all insurance policies that you may have for your Properties carefully, and, in particular, to ensure that you are familiar with and understand any exclusions to, and any deductibles that may apply for, such insurance policy, including, but not limited to, whether or not your insurance policy will cover the acts or omissions of Land-Users (and the individuals the Land-User invites to the Property, if applicable) while on your Property.

So they don't want to take responsibility for anything, just get landowners and the public to pay them so that they in some way track who has permission on these lands.

Pay for access and very little benefit to landowners. There should be something like this for public land, but that should be managed by the govt and not a for profit company.

Wondering if any of the recent inquiries has caused some movement with the authorities?

[BenC68]

Originally Posted by Albertadiver

So they don't want to take responsibility for anything, just get landowners and the public to pay them so that they in some way track who has permission on these lands.

Pay for access and very little benefit to landowners. There should be something like this for public land, but that should be managed by the govt and not a for profit company.

Wondering if any of the recent inquiries has caused some movement with the authorities?

In my discussions with both RCMP and F&W neither were prepared to do anything, F&W told me that they monitor them closely but the law breaking only occurs when a farmer directs you to the site for permission.

[bergman]

Do we really need another middleman in the middle of this issue?
Nothing like adding another layer of red tape. Just wait until it gets bought out by Google or Amazon or some other anti-hunting silicon valley startup.

I would never trust a website to vet people for me. Who knows what their values are or what their standards of quality are? Are they going to require police record checks? If someone files a complaint will a hunter get banned? What if the complaint comes from a non hunting member with an anti hunting bias? There are so, so many negative aspects to this and maybe, maybe
a lone single positive (less phone calls). BUT....

Nothing beats a personal face to face communication with a landowner. Period. If you don't have a relationship of trust none of it works.

[Bergerboy]

I just found a piece of land on there that is verboten to hunt on. Pay to hunt there, get arrested on the way out.

[LCCFisherman]

This entire situation stinks and I'm sad ACA has attached their name to it...

[cdales]

I see they have quickly updated their website to add a disclaimer about the public lands they have listed. Looks like their feathers were ruffled a bit.

[BenC68]

Originally Posted by cdales

I see they have quickly updated their website to add a disclaimer about the public lands they have listed. Looks like their feathers were ruffled a bit.

What a bunch of pukes. Take that **** off your website, and stop using it (yes I realize you have it stated but you're map would have 1/3 the properties it does if you took those down) and can we just get back to what hunting is, and thats building relationships with the farmers.

[cdales]

Haha it's not my website man. Never would I support this I agree this company is taking a step in the wrong direction acting as if it is a positive step which I will never support.

[BenC68]

Originally Posted by cdales

Haha it's not my website man. Never would I support this I agree this company is taking a step in the wrong direction acting as if it is a positive step which I will never support.

The ****ty part is, that both F & W and the RCMP see nothing wrong with it. I sincerely hope no one signs up for this, but I'm guessing based on the number of people in Calgary that claim to hunt, they are full of people.

[MugEye]

Anyone use clas lately ? What’s your experience

[Ranch11]

So what's stopping an outfitter to book the entire parchment of land for the whole season? Nothing I suppose. That's pretty cheap for them actually when you look at the money they make from wildlife. And, if an outfitter can make money off public land or even private land, when the landowner can't make money off the wildlife, how is this not illegal? Hmmmm.....

[Norwest Alta]

Originally Posted by Ranch11

So what's stopping an outfitter to book the entire parchment of land for the whole season? Nothing I suppose. That's pretty cheap for them actually when you look at the money they make from wildlife. And, if an outfitter can make money off public land or even private land, when the landowner can't make money off the wildlife, how is this not illegal? Hmmmm.....

The landowner don't get paid. The owners of the website get the loot. The way I read it is you can pay for a subscription more or less.

[Buckhorn2]

I see alot of these paid access dicussions. And the arguments for and against. I have a few questions. How is paid access to private land going to affect hunting on crown land? Its not. As far as my research has gone you cant buy crown land , very rarely it comes for sale. I am not a land owner. Not many people can afford to purchase land in alberta ( a chunk big enough to call it hunting land) . Most landowners who allow strangers to access their land would probably still allow it free even if a paid system was legal. People who dont have permission or cant afford a guide they hunt crown or friend family land. This would not change under a paid system. I am not for or against paid access as I hunt crown land. The system id like to see fixed in alberta is the lease access issue. We shouldnt have to jump thru hoops to access lease land. Private landowners should be able to do or sell whatever they want with their own land. But leave the crown land free to access. Can someone give me the short answer how paid access would effect our ability to hunt free crown land.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Norwest Alta]

It wouldn't nor should it affect access to crown land.

[Joe Black]

Originally Posted by Buckhorn2

I see alot of these paid access dicussions. And the arguments for and against. I have a few questions. How is paid access to private land going to affect hunting on crown land? Its not. As far as my research has gone you cant buy crown land , very rarely it comes for sale. I am not a land owner. Not many people can afford to purchase land in alberta ( a chunk big enough to call it hunting land) . Most landowners who allow strangers to access their land would probably still allow it free even if a paid system was legal. People who dont have permission or cant afford a guide they hunt crown or friend family land. This would not change under a paid system. I am not for or against paid access as I hunt crown land. The system id like to see fixed in alberta is the lease access issue. We shouldnt have to jump thru hoops to access lease land. Private landowners should be able to do or sell whatever they want with their own land. But leave the crown land free to access. Can someone give me the short answer how paid access would effect our ability to hunt free crown land.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

wont effect your "ability" to hunt crown land, or any others, who will eventually flood to public access areas. There will be those that have had hunting permission on private land for free and now cant afford to pay for it. The argument that the majority of private land is already not accessible so it wont increase pressure on crown land is simply not true. Private land is still accessible in much of Alberta. Sorry, if you live in an urban center, it wont be 15 minutes from your doorstep. And it will take a bit more effort to secure than permission than simply asking a buddy, or posing that question on a website.

I'm not saying all landowners would take payment, dare i say, the majority probably still wouldn't take payment even if they could. That's how the majority of rural people roll. But eventually, their children, or whoever buys the land, will have a different view. Then it will turn into who can pay the most for the access. Public land will then be the stomping grounds of all the schmucks.(like me)

Not a problem for me, I've probably only got about 10 more years left of climbing mountains. Unfortunate for the next generation of hunters, if there one.

[new_AB_huntet]

Very interesting