Help Identifying this person

[chinchaga07]

Originally Posted by Norwest Alta

Ya ok chuckles. You got me figured out. Regardless should I be able to make a profit on my investment? Don’t let the pinko tendencies get in the way of your answer please. Don’t worry I’m sure I would be taxed on the money made.

Right or wrong I beleive my rights as a landowner should be equal to my rights as a hunter.

As a landowner it is your right to maximize a rate of return on your investment be it on improvements or consumables that you put into your land. Double edged sword here. You are stating that you want to maximize on your investment by charging for access to a commodity on your land for which you do not own "wild life". Paid for access is not the way to go.

[Norwest Alta]

Originally Posted by chinchaga07

As a landowner it is your right to maximize a rate of return on your investment be it on improvements or consumables that you put into your land. Double edged sword here. You are stating that you want to maximize on your investment by charging for access to a commodity on your land for which you do not own "wild life". Paid for access is not the way to go.

Yes I know that the landowner does not own the wildlife but he/she could own the access. In my mind charging for access would allow hunters onto some prime land for hunting that would otherwise be unhuntable due to permission being denied. It would make it more desirable to have strangers on their land if there was something to gain by the landowner.

In all truthfulness what does a landowner gain by letting strangers on his property?

[hal53]

Originally Posted by chinchaga07

As a landowner it is your right to maximize a rate of return on your investment be it on improvements or consumables that you put into your land. Double edged sword here. You are stating that you want to maximize on your investment by charging for access to a commodity on your land for which you do not own "wild life". Paid for access is not the way to go.

Do you think then that a land owner should be able to pay hunters to shoot the waterfowl that are eating his swathed crops?

[saddleup]

I know landowners that PAY to have you shoot gophers on their land because they are destroying crops and grassland............... just saying.

[chinchaga07]

Originally Posted by Norwest Alta

Yes I know that the landowner does not own the wildlife but he/she could own the access. In my mind charging for access would allow hunters onto some prime land for hunting that would otherwise be unhuntable due to permission being denied. It would make it more desirable to have strangers on their land if there was something to gain by the landowner.

In all truthfulness what does a landowner gain by letting strangers on his property?

Its the landowners right to restrict access after all he paid for the land be it for farming, cattle or pure recreation. I do know from experience one of the best and dearest friends I have is a result of going and asking for access to land that was posted. It merely started out as a landowner hunter relationship but i now consider him one of my best friends.

I agree with a lot on here that if we go the route of legalized paid access, a lot of individuals will not be able to afford it. Some statements here have stated that it potentially could open up some prime land that has stayed private. But as others have stated "maximum return on an investment" I forsee a bidding war. The old saying "Money Talks".

I am fortunate to have access on private land which has been attained and retained through positive interactions with the landowners and respecting all the conditions they put on it. Most have fostered into friendships. I would hate to see a price tag placed on that.

[slough shark]

Originally Posted by Norwest Alta

Yes I know that the landowner does not own the wildlife but he/she could own the access. In my mind charging for access would allow hunters onto some prime land for hunting that would otherwise be unhuntable due to permission being denied. It would make it more desirable to have strangers on their land if there was something to gain by the landowner.

In all truthfulness what does a landowner gain by letting strangers on his property?

The landowner has more hay and grain to either sell or feed his livestock. The amount of feed say a herd of 100 elk or a couple hundred deer eats could remove a lot of their profit margin. Allowing hunters keeps the numbers in check and spreads out the animals. In the area I hunt there are a few landowners that don't allow hunting, 1 of the landowners in particular ends up with the animals congregating on his land for 6-8 months of the year and you can see if definitely impacts his income. On top of this his land borders a highway, every year there are numerous vehicle accidents some of which have seriously injured people so there is that too... not going to outright blame him for that but his stretch of highway accounts for a good percentage of accidents in the area, I've seen 2 happen myself and see the dead animals every year in the ditch.

[chinchaga07]

Originally Posted by hal53

Do you think then that a land owner should be able to pay hunters to shoot the waterfowl that are eating his swathed crops?

I think this thread got somewhat derailed and a new one should have been created in terms of paid access.

In regards to your question, I firmly believe that a landowner would have no issue finding people to come shoot waterfowl that are destroying their crops without the need for payment.

I in the past have placed free adds in the classifieds in new areas I wanted to hunt, asking if there were local land owners in the area willing to provide access for the game i wanted to hunt. I provided a phone number for them to call and offered to meet in person if they wished. It has worked very well. Landowners could do the same. As said on here before, i have seen landowners advertise to come whack gophers for free. I have even seen it on this forums and others.

[ResidentSpokesman]

Originally Posted by Norwest Alta

Yes I know that the landowner does not own the wildlife but he/she could own the access. In my mind charging for access would allow hunters onto some prime land for hunting that would otherwise be unhuntable due to permission being denied. It would make it more desirable to have strangers on their land if there was something to gain by the landowner.

In all truthfulness what does a landowner gain by letting strangers on his property?

There may be a little bit more land that opens up but I really think it would be so minimal that it’s not even worth taking into consideration. We’ll never know hopefully.

And really....if money for access is the only thing stopping a landowner from allowing any hunting at all, that landowner is the kind of person that will end up making this whole bad idea even worse.

I am a landowner and I DO let select strangers on to my property. The fact that you asked this question tells me you are either inexperienced with hunting on private land or you’ve run out of ways to prove your point.

I’m leaning towards the latter...

[Norwest Alta]

Originally Posted by ResidentSpokesman

There may be a little bit more land that opens up but I really think it would be so minimal that it’s not even worth taking into consideration. We’ll never know hopefully.

And really....if money for access is the only thing stopping a landowner from allowing any hunting at all, that landowner is the kind of person that will end up making this whole bad idea even worse.

I am a landowner and I DO let select strangers on to my property. The fact that you asked this question tells me you are either inexperienced with hunting on private land or you’ve run out of ways to prove your point.

I’m leaning towards the latter...

Not trying to prove anything as this subject is somewhat unprovable as to what would happen or what would not happen. I personally would not compromise my value of friendship by charging access to friends and family.

I’m unsure where my experience or inexperience to hunting private property fits into this?

[ResidentSpokesman]

It’s simple really. You’re clearly arguing in favour of paid access to private land right? Are you really that surprised that someone on the other side of that debate would question whether or not you know what you’re talking about?

[Norwest Alta]

Originally Posted by ResidentSpokesman

It’s simple really. You’re clearly arguing in favour of paid access to private land right? Are you really that surprised that someone on the other side of that debate would question whether or not you know what you’re talking about?

Yes I am in favour of paid access. Do I hunt private land? Yes. Do I know what I’m talking about? If I’m asking you I guess the answer would be no. Lol. I beleive I know what I’m talking about. Paid access right? Lol

[Norwest Alta]

I’ll admit resident spokesman that there is a lot I don’t know about paid access and I got no doubt that there is some pro’s and con’s.

[ResidentSpokesman]

There are a lot of benefits to having people on your land for a landowner. I can’t be everywhere during hunting season so it’s reassuring for me to know that there are other guys around that have an interest in keeping trespassers and poachers off my place.

I can’t tell you how many times over the years responsible hunters have brought things to my attention that I wouldn’t have noticed until later. Things like broken fences, open gates, cows where they shouldn’t be, trespassers etc. As a mattervof fact a few years ago a guy got trail camera pictures of a lowlife neighbour stealing a stand on our place (my stand). I got the stand back entirely thanks to him hunting on our land.

I can’t speak for anyone else, but I make a point of talking to the guys that ask for a while before I decide what I think of them. How would cash make this situation any better? If anything I can easily see it becoming frustrating. It’s no secret that there is a huge sense of entitlement out there these days. If offering cash for access were to suddenly become legal, can you not see a lot of conflicts arising from guys that seem to think their offer of cash should equate to permission? Or what about the guys that think because they paid for the access they can do whatever they want. There’s too much of that as it is. I can’t see how adding paid access would make it anything but worse....

[ResidentSpokesman]

Don’t get me wrong, I could also tell you stories for hours about trespsssers, poachers and theives too. It’s far from all sunshine, lolli pops and rainbows. But I honestly believe there are still way more decent guys out there than scumbags. And I sure like having the decent guys around.

[last minute]

What a bunch of @#$#@! Going on in this tread I know what I like to say about it all but it might get me kicked off.

That being said as for the original part on this thread Before it got derailed good luck with the trespassers pics don't lie.

[Norwest Alta]

Originally Posted by ResidentSpokesman

Don’t get me wrong, I could also tell you stories for hours about trespsssers, poachers and theives too. It’s far from all sunshine, lolli pops and rainbows. But I honestly believe there are still way more decent guys out there than scumbags. And I sure like having the decent guys around.

Absolutely there is.

[IL Bar]

Originally Posted by saddleup

I know landowners that PAY to have you shoot gophers on their land because they are destroying crops and grassland............... just saying.

I know waterfowl hunters that can go in and hunt without doing $1-2000 crop damage but they are few and far between................just saying.

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by ResidentSpokesman

You’re right. I suppose I was involved. I should probably turn myself in.

What do you think I can expect as a penalty for being aware that he was breaking the law and reporting every single infraction that I was aware of directly to Report A Poacher?

Infering wrong doing where it doesn’t exist to prove a point only makes your point weaker friend.

Forgive me! I probably come to the wrong conclusion when you wrote
"There is an outfitter in Alberta that pays / trades landowners for exclusive access in one of the areas I hunt. Because I used to work for him I was privy to several of his deals. "

I am really not trying to prove anything. I was just adding a few crooked outfitter stories to the one you were privy to. I have way more.

My main point is that I have no problem with a land owner not giving permission or giving permission to those he chooses.

My next point if it is a point is that I suspect that there already is paid hunting going on with respect to outfitters. Actually I know a couple cases but like you I have not put in a call to the hot line.

As far as the Wyoming thing goes I had no problem paying to hunt an area without hassle. When we hunted Wyoming they had more antelope than we have gophers and more land than people. In Wyoming people really don't like the goats much. Many think they are a nuisance. When we hunted Wyoming there was a lot of free hunting and no permission required. Lots of signs saying hunter welcome and please drop off coupons in the box or the old fridge at the end of the road. At that time the landowners got $8.00 for every coupon collected.

[CMichaud]

I reckon most people would have an issue with some stranger coming into their fenced yard and hanging out uninvited. No difference for the land owner.

To the OP - Wish I could help. Best of luck tracking these two trespassers down. I hope they are charged.

[HuntingAlberta]

Good Morning, I know a few people were interested in a follow up to this story. So here goes;

1) So far, 4 of 7 people I have trail camera pictures of trespassing on private land have been charged by F&W. One more was identified and was a minor accompanying an adult and therefore could not be charged as they were under the direct command of the adult.
2) one has not been identified yet.
3) the last person has been identified and was from out of province. The F&W has the province in question looking into pressing charges and most likely will be charged between the two provinces working together.

Therefore, 5 of 7 people on camera will be or have been charged. I am also working with the RCMP to charge 2 of the above people with break and enter, damage to private property, etc and hoping to have their quad confiscated. Yes, i have the plate and pictures of their faces and they have been identified and already charged by F&W for trespass.

Good luck out there chasing predators and sheds to the rest of you. To all of you who helped identify, Thank you!

[LJalberta]

Originally Posted by HuntingAlberta

Good Morning, I know a few people were interested in a follow up to this story. So here goes;

1) So far, 4 of 7 people I have trail camera pictures of trespassing on private land have been charged by F&W. One more was identified and was a minor accompanying an adult and therefore could not be charged as they were under the direct command of the adult.
2) one has not been identified yet.
3) the last person has been identified and was from out of province. The F&W has the province in question looking into pressing charges and most likely will be charged between the two provinces working together.

Therefore, 5 of 7 people on camera will be or have been charged. I am also working with the RCMP to charge 2 of the above people with break and enter, damage to private property, etc and hoping to have their quad confiscated. Yes, i have the plate and pictures of their faces and they have been identified and already charged by F&W for trespass.

Good luck out there chasing predators and sheds to the rest of you. To all of you who helped identify, Thank you!

Great job. Thanks for the update as well. Nice to hear there's some solid follow-up by RCMP/ F&W when you have the right/sufficient evidence.

[Albertadiver]

Originally Posted by HuntingAlberta

Good Morning, I know a few people were interested in a follow up to this story. So here goes;

1) So far, 4 of 7 people I have trail camera pictures of trespassing on private land have been charged by F&W. One more was identified and was a minor accompanying an adult and therefore could not be charged as they were under the direct command of the adult.
2) one has not been identified yet.
3) the last person has been identified and was from out of province. The F&W has the province in question looking into pressing charges and most likely will be charged between the two provinces working together.

Therefore, 5 of 7 people on camera will be or have been charged. I am also working with the RCMP to charge 2 of the above people with break and enter, damage to private property, etc and hoping to have their quad confiscated. Yes, i have the plate and pictures of their faces and they have been identified and already charged by F&W for trespass.

Good luck out there chasing predators and sheds to the rest of you. To all of you who helped identify, Thank you!

Glad to hear it!

[gtr]

Unusually successful.

[marlin1]

good to see success , I go to great pains in this zone to secure permission and see guys usually every year just showing up .

[Rather Be Hunting]

Well done

[LCCFisherman]

Happy to see the days of this are behind us. Judges FINALLY ruling in the favor of fisheries and wildlife. The future is looking brighter with each passing year. Great thread, glad to see your diligence worked out!

[58thecat]

Charged and hopefully found guilty!

[Grump]

Originally Posted by HuntingAlberta

Good Morning, I know a few people were interested in a follow up to this story. So here goes;

Yeehaw! That's awesome. That is unusually successful.

[Salavee]

The State of Wyoming has taken a run at the Access issue. Not sure if it's perfect but at least it's an attempt ... https://wgfd.wyo.gov/Public-Access/Access-Yes