Road allowances between private land.

[winged1]

Originally Posted by ctd

It would be Illegal for a Land owner to TAG an Animal to which they did not shoot with out gaining permission from F&W.

what's the premise of this?

[TBark]

Some good info from AO posts a few yrs back.

http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=45517

http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=47743

TBark

[bigbadjoe108]

Hi all,

It is funny that this comes up now. Earlier this season a friend and I used a road allowance to access what we thought was DU land to go for some ducks. Well we ensured we were on the DU land and that we we 250+ meters from any buildings and set up our blind. Well right a we got two a man in a truck comes driving up and screaming at us that we were on private land. Well it was my first time there and thought it very possible we had made a mistake. We apologized profusely and left.

When we got back to town we checked the county map. Apparently the land was DU land and the guy was just a jerk.

Meh, before next season I'm checking that road allowance with the county and if that is crown land we are for sure heading back!!

[ctd]

Read the regulations about found dead wildlife and gaining a permit to possess such.

Make sure you go into the Alberta Queens Printer version. Then get back to me where I get my answer from.

[elkhunter11]

Read the regulations about found dead wildlife and gaining a permit to possess such.

Make sure you go into the Alberta Queens Printer version. Then get back to me where I get my answer from.

Then again if the landowner claims that the animal was still alive and that he finished it off, you might have a hard time proving otherwise after he tags it, and dresses it out.

[ctd]

What the land owner was video taped doing such, or what if the F&W Officer was present and seen this happen, what if the person who shot the animal followed the ruls to not let any game animal go to waste, what if the land owner was not a D head and allowed the hunter to retrieve his game.

Lots of what if's.

[AlazyS]

I have road allowance along part of my 500 acre pasture. I allow 15 gentlemen access to hunt every year. There was / has / is tresspassing traffic from the road allowance.

Originally was continual problems, so this is how I fixed (almost). I issued hunt permits to those with permission, those without my issued permission card are tresspassing / poaching.

I then have granted F&W access to the property (at all times) with clear instruction to charge anyone found there without one of my issued permits. They like this idea.

This has been a good solution thus far, but then had my own hunt interupted by a tresspasser. He got out before we could catch up with him, he either left or eluded us with good camo.

My last result to fix, will be the soon to be purchased thermal (flir) binocular so tresspassers cannot elude capture and charges being laid. Yes I know thermals are expensive, but if tresspassers / poachers want to keep escalating, I have the means to take it further.

Cheers ! My 2 cents.

[elkhunter11]

what if the person who shot the animal followed the ruls to not let any game animal go to waste,

Those rules don't give him the right to trespass.

what if the land owner was not a D head and allowed the hunter to retrieve his game.

If someone insists on hunting a road allowance next to property that he doesn't have permission to access, he takes the risk of being denied access. The hunters poor planning isn't the fault of the landowner.

[winged1]

Originally Posted by ctd

Read the regulations about found dead wildlife and gaining a permit to possess such.

Make sure you go into the Alberta Queens Printer version. Then get back to me where I get my answer from.

now you've got me wondering about the context of said regulation.
Say hunter A was hunting public lands across the fence and hunter B was hunting his private land on the other side. Hunter A shot a deer that made it across the fence onto the private land and collapsed. Hunter B calmly walks over and places his tag on the animal. Is he in contempt of the law? Does hunter A have any recourse? If you and I where hunting and you shot a deer, but I placed my tag on it, am I in contempt of the law?

You could also say that section 84 provides that possession impies you've harvested.

Regardless, an owner would not be in contempt of the law if they denied access to a hunter to claim thier kill.

[winged1]

Originally Posted by ctd

Read the regulations about found dead wildlife and gaining a permit to possess such.

Make sure you go into the Alberta Queens Printer version. Then get back to me where I get my answer from.

Ok, rather than edit that last post, I'll start anew. Your totally out of context on your position. The act clearly states that interests in ownership are transferred by afixing a valid tag to the animal, and by doing so, you've been deemed to have 'hunted' that animal.

[ctd]

If you find dead wild life you must contact F&W for a permit. They will either issue you a Permit to possess the wildlife or they may allow you to affix your tag. That will be up to them.
You cannot make that decision yourself.

Show me where it says affixing your tag to found dead wildlife transfers ownership. Please do.

The act also states that a authorized Officer may access your land to enforce the rules and regulations.

Back to the original scenerio.
A hunter lawfully hunts on a right away. Shoot a animal, the animal crosses into private land. The hunter asks permission to retrieve their game, permission is denied. Hunter then calls F&W to deal with the situation. F&W shows up to retrieve the game. The land owner denies permission to the Officer to retrieve the game.
Here are a couple differnent scenerios

1. Officer tells the landowner that they are going to retrieve the game for the hunter and the land owner cannot interfer.

2 The landowner goes out affixs his own tag to the animal, claims that they shot it themselves.

3. The landowner concedes and allows the Officer and or the hunter the retrieve their game.

4. Landowner refuses any access and blocks access to the Officer.

5. Land owner takes possision of the animal in question. Applies for a permit to possess foudn dead wildlife.

[winged1]

Originally Posted by ctd

If you find dead wild life you must contact F&W for a permit. They will either issue you a Permit to possess the wildlife or they may allow you to affix your tag. That will be up to them.
You cannot make that decision yourself.

Show me where it says affixing your tag to found dead wildlife transfers ownership. Please do.

The act also states that a authorized Officer may access your land to enforce the rules and regulations.

Back to the original scenerio.
A hunter lawfully hunts on a right away. Shoot a animal, the animal crosses into private land. The hunter asks permission to retrieve their game, permission is denied. Hunter then calls F&W to deal with the situation. F&W shows up to retrieve the game. The land owner denies permission to the Officer to retrieve the game.
Here are a couple differnent scenerios

1. Officer tells the landowner that they are going to retrieve the game for the hunter and the land owner cannot interfer.

2 The landowner goes out affixs his own tag to the animal, claims that they shot it themselves.

3. The landowner concedes and allows the Officer and or the hunter the retrieve their game.

4. Landowner refuses any access and blocks access to the Officer.

5. Land owner takes possision of the animal in question. Applies for a permit to possess foudn dead wildlife.

Come on, you don't bother giving me a link, yet you ask for specifics. Get a life. It's spattered around in much of the Act's language, but section 8 / 9 is a good place to start.

[Lefty-Canuck]

If you shoot a deer on your side of the fence...it jumps to my side and is still alive and I deliver the last shot fatal blow...that deer is mine.

No different than if a guy shoots an animal and doesn't recover it, it is still alive but wounded....I am out hunting see the wounded animal and I shoot it....its mine.

If a guy shoots and the animal is dead when I find it on my side...it could become mine after I call F and W and follow their instructions.

LC

[elkhunter11]

If you shoot a deer on your side of the fence...it jumps to my side and is still alive and I deliver the last shot fatal blow...that deer is mine.

No different than if a guy shoots an animal and doesn't recover it, it is still alive but wounded....I am out hunting see the wounded animal and I shoot it....its mine.

If a guy shoots and the animal is dead when I find it on my side...it could become mine after I call F and W and follow their instructions.

Exactly, if the animal makes it onto my land, and it is still alive, I have the option of shooting it and tagging it as my own if I choose to. As to determining if it is still alive, the landowner that has the ability to walk up to the animal, is in a much better position to assess that, than the person that has to watch from the property line.

Not that I would want to shoot someone else's animal, and waste my tag on it, but if they shot it on my land, or they were shooting towards my buildings or my livestock or machinery, I might do it,just to teach them a lesson.

[pottymouth]

Anyone that hunts on a road allowance, between two private properties that they don't have permission on is just asking for trouble. IMO, I see it as disrespectful to the land owners and the wildlife. In most cases they are just trying to steal a shot at game, because they are childish about the fact they can't obtain permission. Most times the game hops the fence and they proceed after it, with no regard about laws.......that's my experience with individuals doing such.


On another note, I heard the other day that a certain county, is putting into place, a No big game hunting bylaw on all their unmaintained road allowances in there county. A well anticipated new rule !

[Acesneights]

So if a hunter shoots a new world record whitetail on a road allowance and it dies 10 ft on some prixs land who will not allow access to anyone including f&w, I can promise you that everyone on this thread would get a lawyer and eventually get their deer back even though it's not the scenario the hunter wants.As soon as a f&w officer tells the landowner that he cannot touch that deer because it is going to be under investigation the landowner either doesn't want the hassle of court and will let f&w in to retrieve it or it will be taken as evidence and if the hunter can prove blood or snow showing he shot it on the allowance then the hunter will be allotted the deer and have a warning to be more careful next time.Case closed.Also I use " new world record " because lets get real if it was a doe nobody here would go through the hassle, let the landowner "win " this time

[Acesneights]

I was waiting for you to buzz in pottymouth : ) However the original question was more about the legistics of it not morals because let's face it there are a lot of road allowances that you wouldn't want the hassle

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by bdarling

So if a hunter shoots a new world record whitetail on a road allowance and it dies 10 ft on some prixs land who will not allow access to anyone including f&w, I can promise you that everyone on this thread would get a lawyer and eventually get their deer back even though it's not the scenario the hunter wants.As soon as a f&w officer tells the landowner that he cannot touch that deer because it is going to be under investigation the landowner either doesn't want the hassle of court and will let f&w in to retrieve it or it will be taken as evidence and if the hunter can prove blood or snow showing he shot it on the allowance then the hunter will be allotted the deer and have a warning to be more careful next time.Case closed.Also I use " new world record " because lets get real if it was a doe nobody here would go through the hassle, let the landowner "win " this time

I get what you are saying BUT....

If the animal dies on private property that a guy has no permission on....it would not qualify for the record books as "it was not obtained through legal means"....that excuse has been tried many times where a guy shoots a deer where he is not allowed but has tried to argue it was the biggest one he ever saw so he took a chance....

I just don't agree with your logic...that's my opinion.

Also I disagree with you stating "anyone on this thread would lawyer up to claim the new world record"....many of us would never hunt in a fashion that would even remotely require that we even in a 1% chance would have to lawyer up.

LC

[Dark]

"I see it as disrespectful to the land owners and the wildlife. In most cases they are just trying to steal a shot at game, because they are childish about the fact they can't obtain permission. Most times the game hops the fence and they proceed after it, with no regard about laws"

x2 pottymouth

and if it jumps the fence do they even risk tresspassing to go look for blood, I doubt it.

Our crew has shot alot of animals that have had very little evidence of a hit at the orginal spot. But once we follow the animals direction of travel we have found bood. So all you road hunters that hunt around private land and that have shot at animals that run onto private land how do you follow up on you misses, or should I say the hits you thought were misses. I know, you don't

"many of us would never hunt in a fashion that would even remotely require that we even in a 1% chance would have to lawyer up."

x2 again

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by AlazyS

I then have granted F&W access to the property (at all times) with clear instruction to charge anyone found there without one of my issued permits.

I don't mean this as a comment on your practice, just a question: Don't F&W have the right to access private land with or without permission in the course of their duties? Do they need to go find the landowner before they come onto the property to check licences, etc.? I would have thought they did have right of access, but i could be wrong.

[Donkey Oatey]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

I don't mean this as a comment on your practice, just a question: Don't F&W have the right to access private land with or without permission in the course of their duties? Do they need to go find the landowner before they come onto the property to check licences, etc.? I would have thought they did have right of access, but i could be wrong.

From the Wildlife Act

Entry on and the passing over of land
66(1) A wildlife officer or wildlife guardian may, without a
warrant, enter on and pass over any land while lawfully engaged in
the exercise of powers or the performance of duties or functions
given him or her by, or that otherwise relate to the enforcement of,
this Act, including those implied by section 65.
(2) Subsection (1) does not in itself authorize the entry into any
tent, building or other structure or any search or seizure.
(3) The officer or guardian, while lawfully engaged in the entry on
or the passing over of the land in accordance with subsection (1), is
liable only for damage that he or she wilfully causes.
RSA 2000 cW-10 s66;2002 c30 s33;2009 c36 s4



Now it would come down to is going on to private land to recover an animal for a hunter a duty of a F&W Officer? I guess if the officer had any questions as to whether it was a legit hunt or not they would. Sometimes it comes down to don't upset the apple cart, might not get any cooperation out of the land owner when you do need it.

[winged1]

Originally Posted by bdarling

So if a hunter shoots a new world record whitetail on a road allowance and it dies 10 ft on some prixs land who will not allow access to anyone including f&w, I can promise you that everyone on this thread would get a lawyer and eventually get their deer back even though it's not the scenario the hunter wants.As soon as a f&w officer tells the landowner that he cannot touch that deer because it is going to be under investigation the landowner either doesn't want the hassle of court and will let f&w in to retrieve it or it will be taken as evidence and if the hunter can prove blood or snow showing he shot it on the allowance then the hunter will be allotted the deer and have a warning to be more careful next time.Case closed.Also I use " new world record " because lets get real if it was a doe nobody here would go through the hassle, let the landowner "win " this time

so if, just as the deer jumps the fence, the owner barrels over with his truck, jumps out and gives it a mercy shot, tags it, then proudly instructs you not to cross his property line, how is your legal team going to get your trophy back?, or should I ask how is your legal team going to get him to surrender his trophy to you?

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by Donkey Oatey

From the Wildlife Act

Entry on and the passing over of land
66(1) A wildlife officer or wildlife guardian may, without a
warrant, enter on and pass over any land while lawfully engaged in
the exercise of powers or the performance of duties or functions
given him or her by, or that otherwise relate to the enforcement of,
this Act, including those implied by section 65.
(2) Subsection (1) does not in itself authorize the entry into any
tent, building or other structure or any search or seizure.
(3) The officer or guardian, while lawfully engaged in the entry on
or the passing over of the land in accordance with subsection (1), is
liable only for damage that he or she wilfully causes.
RSA 2000 cW-10 s66;2002 c30 s33;2009 c36 s4



Now it would come down to is going on to private land to recover an animal for a hunter a duty of a F&W Officer? I guess if the officer had any questions as to whether it was a legit hunt or not they would. Sometimes it comes down to don't upset the apple cart, might not get any cooperation out of the land owner when you do need it.

I don't think retrieving game is listed under their duties and responsibilities? Unless it was part of an active investigation...for which they would likely obtain a warrant?

LC

[Acesneights]

I am for the most part just debating people's opinions here and trying to give a different view on it.And yes nobody really would ever wanna get a lawyer.However one scenario that bothers me and that's why I'm stating an opinion on the other side.I was hunting up north in bush country and I had shot my buck at a different location on the first day then after a couple of days everyone in my group had shot their deer and to waste some time one morning I went down this road allowance that is in between two proporties that I don't have permission just to go down and see some deer and hang out the day before we had to leave and I brought my gun just incase I seen a wolf. After sitting for ten minutes the landowner( which I know won't give anyone permission) came ripping up in his truck got out and started screaming at me telling me he's calling f&w.He really ****ed me off however I then pursued to play with him and ask him for permission then tried to lighten the mood.he didn't give up so I told him my name and kindly left.So my problem is he could've gone about it differently and introduced himself and talked with me instead of screaming at me.i even explained I wasn't really hunting.Now every time I go there I make a point of sitting there once.Sorry maybe I'm a d___.

[winged1]

(2) Subsection (1) does not in itself authorize the entry into any
tent, building or other structure or any search or seizure.

wouldn't looking for a downed deer on private property with the thought of returning it to a non permissed hunter be search and seizure? Personally, F&W officers are way too be busy with all the bad guys to be serving a hunter who can't find his deer.

[Donkey Oatey]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

I don't think retrieving game is listed under their duties and responsibilities? Unless it was part of an active investigation...for which they would likely obtain a warrant?

LC

I don't think so either. But investigating if it was killed on private land without permission certainly would be.

As for search without warrant.

Search, etc., without warrant
71(1) If distance, urgency, the imminent danger of the loss,
removal, destruction or disappearance of evidence or other relevant
factors do not reasonably permit the obtaining of a warrant, a
wildlife officer or wildlife guardian may, without obtaining a
warrant,
(a) enter into and search any premises or a place, vehicle,
aircraft, boat or a building, tent or other structure,
(a.1) search any land lawfully entered on under section 66, or
(b) search any container, including a pack, or any
pack-animal,
if the officer or guardian believes on reasonable and probable
grounds that there is in or on it any evidence of an offence against
this Act.
(1.1) A wildlife officer or wildlife guardian who has reasonable
and probable grounds to believe that the lawful exercise of any
powers or the lawful performance of any duties or functions
referred to in section 66(1) necessitates the examination or
inspection of anything or any location referred to in subsection
(1)(a), (a.1) or (b) or of any subject animal or other property may,
without a warrant, perform that examination or inspection, as the
case may be.
(2) The officer or guardian shall not enter into or search the living
quarters of a private dwelling under this section unless the officer
or guardian is in immediate pursuit of a person who the officer or
guardian has reasonable and probable grounds to believe has
committed an offence against this Act.



So the entry on to land in this case would not need a warrant that I could see. It would not be an investigation against the land owner so would not infringe on their rights against unreasonable search and seizure. Again I am not sure it would be worth the trouble arguing and battling with the land owner for the officer.

[winged1]

Originally Posted by Donkey Oatey

I don't think so either. But investigating if it was killed on private land without permission certainly would be.

As for search without warrant.

Search, etc., without warrant
71(1) If distance, urgency, the imminent danger of the loss,
removal, destruction or disappearance of evidence or other relevant
factors do not reasonably permit the obtaining of a warrant, a
wildlife officer or wildlife guardian may, without obtaining a
warrant,
(a) enter into and search any premises or a place, vehicle,
aircraft, boat or a building, tent or other structure,
(a.1) search any land lawfully entered on under section 66, or
(b) search any container, including a pack, or any
pack-animal,
if the officer or guardian believes on reasonable and probable
grounds that there is in or on it any evidence of an offence against
this Act.
(1.1) A wildlife officer or wildlife guardian who has reasonable
and probable grounds to believe that the lawful exercise of any
powers or the lawful performance of any duties or functions
referred to in section 66(1) necessitates the examination or
inspection of anything or any location referred to in subsection
(1)(a), (a.1) or (b) or of any subject animal or other property may,
without a warrant, perform that examination or inspection, as the
case may be.
(2) The officer or guardian shall not enter into or search the living
quarters of a private dwelling under this section unless the officer
or guardian is in immediate pursuit of a person who the officer or
guardian has reasonable and probable grounds to believe has
committed an offence against this Act.



So the entry on to land in this case would not need a warrant that I could see. It would not be an investigation against the land owner so would not infringe on their rights against unreasonable search and seizure. Again I am not sure it would be worth the trouble arguing and battling with the land owner for the officer.

I don't think though that this in any way could be conscrued as expecting a wildlife officer to ensure your downed deer is recovered.

[elkhunter11]

So if a hunter shoots a new world record whitetail on a road allowance and it dies 10 ft on some prixs land who will not allow access to anyone including f&w, I can promise you that everyone on this thread would get a lawyer and eventually get their deer back even though it's not the scenario the hunter wants.As soon as a f&w officer tells the landowner that he cannot touch that deer because it is going to be under investigation the landowner either doesn't want the hassle of court and will let f&w in to retrieve it or it will be taken as evidence and if the hunter can prove blood or snow showing he shot it on the allowance then the hunter will be allotted the deer and have a warning to be more careful next time.Case closed.

Of course you are assuming that the F&W will arrive immediately. If the hunter was honest,the scenario would more likely be along the lines of:

-Hunters sees that deer is on private land and attempts to locate landowner.This might happen immediately, but it could take up to hours.

-Hunters asks landowner for permission to retrieve animal, and is denied, either because the landowner is being difficult, or because the hunter gave him attitude.

-Meanwhile hunter calls F&W, and waits for them to arrive. It's hunting season, so they are busy, so the hunter is told that it could take up to several hours for F&W to arrive.

-Hunter waits for hours, or perhaps until the next day, because confronting a landowner, in order to retrieve a deer isn't high on F&Ws priorities.

- F&W arrive, and investigates where the deer was shot, and if the hunter was within 200 yards of occupied buildings, of if he fired bullets that passed with 200 yards of occupied buildings. At the landowner's urging F&W could also examine the scene to see if the hunter fired bullets towards the landowners buildings,livestock or machinery, to make sure that the hunter was not using a firearm carelessly. F&W would also look to see if in fact the hunter had stepped onto the private property before they arrived, as even stepping on the edge of the property to look at the deer would be trespassing. The hunter would be trying to prove his case, but the landowner would be doing the same.

- If F&W is convinced that the deer was on the road allowance, when all shots were fired, and that the hunter committed no offenses, F&W could plead with the landowner to allow them to retrieve the deer from his land.

-If the landowner refuses, then it would come down to how sure the officers were, that they had grounds to enter the land to retrieve the deer, and how adamant the landowner was.


However, given a potential world record deer, being only 10 feet onto private property, the much more likely result is that the hunter would tresspass that 10 feet to retrieve the deer, rather than leave it laying there in order to try and find the landowner. If he was lucky enough to get away with it, he takes home a great deer. If he is seen doing it, he is fined, and likely loses the deer.

Then there are other possibilities, such as the landowner tagging it for himself. Once it was dressed, it would be very difficult to prove that it wasn't still alive when he arrived at the carcass.

Yet another possibility would be the landowner reallizing the trophy potential, and breaking off an antler, before F&W arrived to make the antlers unscoreable.Good luck proving that.

Landowners can be easy to get along with, and they can be difficult, and it often depends on your attitude towards them. If you show respect, you usually gain access, but if you show attitude, or demand access, they usually respond very negatively.

All in all, there are just too many things that can go wrong if you choose to hunt a road allowance with private land on both sides, and no permission to enter that private land.

[thefloormat]

to the original poster, PM me. Im not an alberta land surveyor, but I have been surveying for over 10 years now. I can probably give you an answer, that I will post here for everyone to know about GRA's

I have an ALS standing next to me at the moment that I will also ask questions, to make sure I put up the correct answer.

ANyone else have any questions, let me know, at the very least I can pull up the township Plat and look to see if a road allowance has been surveyed and then removed or if it still stands even though it may be undeveloped.

--->MAT

[remmy300]

Originally Posted by pottymouth

Anyone that hunts on a road allowance, between two private properties that they don't have permission on is just asking for trouble. IMO, I see it as disrespectful to the land owners and the wildlife. In most cases they are just trying to steal a shot at game, because they are childish about the fact they can't obtain permission. Most times the game hops the fence and they proceed after it, with no regard about laws.......that's my experience with individuals doing such.

I totally agree 100%.