Canadian Land Access Systems???? - Page 2

silver lab · #31 10-27-2016, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdales

Saw they have added the "King Lease" in Southern Alberta which looks to be GRL 33310... now not only would you be paying to access land.. you would be paying to access land that you already have rights to access.. this is a mess I hope they get shutdown.

So if i dont pay and join i cant hunt on the "King lease"?
Has anyone reported this to fish and wildlife yet?

cdales · #32 10-27-2016, 02:41 PM

Not sure, would have to call and see. Seems
Like a can of worms that could get crushed by F&W.

Heckler · #33 11-01-2016, 11:49 PM

I'm glad I found this post. The colony I have hunted on for nearly 10 years has signed onto this CLAS thing.

As of now I haven't paid to sign up yet, and I'm not sure if I will. My friend there who is setting it all up told me they have been getting inundated with permission requests the past couple of seasons, and also have had conflicts between parties of hunters trying to get on the same property on the same day. In all my years of hunting there, bow and rifle, I have only had one issue with another hunter that was less than friendly. But its their place so I'm sure there is stuff going on I don't know about.

I did ask if they are getting paid by this company to list, and he was adamant that they are not receiving a dime for it. He did indicate it is costing them a fair bit though, but I have no idea how much. For users to gain access to CLAS and make bookings, you can pay $30 for one month, $8 .99 per month for a minimum 6 months, or $70 for one year. It seems a little expensive to me. He told me that they are having a fair number of glitches so far as well - for example, people have signed on but then weren't able to book and ended up having to get written permission anyway. If that's how well its put together, I'm pretty sure I could create them a much easier booking system in Google calendar that won't cost them or the users anything.

So I'm sitting here wondering if I should bite the bullet and try it out, or if I should just go shoot a deer on one of the other places I already have permission and it isn't going to cost me anything to do it. On one hand, I can see the benefit to the landowners to help manage access, but I think if its going to work and they want people to sign up as users the pricing is going to have to come down a bit. But then I think hey if I can get access somewhere and I know I'll have the place to myself for the days I choose, maybe its worth it. I don't know.

I am also worried as someone else said that this type of thing could be paving the way for paid access all around in the future.

Also, waterninja you are correct, that's exactly what my friend told me. This service was never intended for hunting permission. Seems there are many kinks they will need to work out if its going to work, and it doesn't do anything to deter trespassing. I asked my friend about that, he told me if you run into someone and there is an issue, that when you book you get a booking sheet or something to print out and bring with you. If the other guy doesn't have one tell him he doesn't have permission. I've already had one run in with some nutjob guide trying to run me off somewhere I had written permission, so I really don't think I want to be getting into it with some stranger who is already breaking the law as it is.

I also agree with what Ranch11 said - these are just faceless people "booking" access to your land that you have never met. I would imagine landowners would feel more comfortable knowing who is on their land and being able to put a face to a name, or at least talk to the person.

Can someone who has signed up share some more information about it? Do you need to put stuff like your vehicle description and plate number there as well?

walking buffalo · #34 11-02-2016, 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heckler

I'm glad I found this post. The colony I have hunted on for nearly 10 years has signed onto this CLAS thing.

As of now I haven't paid to sign up yet, and I'm not sure if I will. My friend there who is setting it all up told me they have been getting inundated with permission requests the past couple of seasons, and also have had conflicts between parties of hunters trying to get on the same property on the same day. In all my years of hunting there, bow and rifle, I have only had one issue with another hunter that was less than friendly. But its their place so I'm sure there is stuff going on I don't know about.

I did ask if they are getting paid by this company to list, and he was adamant that they are not receiving a dime for it. He did indicate it is costing them a fair bit though, but I have no idea how much. For users to gain access to CLAS and make bookings, you can pay $30 for one month, $8 .99 per month for a minimum 6 months, or $70 for one year. It seems a little expensive to me. He told me that they are having a fair number of glitches so far as well - for example, people have signed on but then weren't able to book and ended up having to get written permission anyway. If that's how well its put together, I'm pretty sure I could create them a much easier booking system in Google calendar that won't cost them or the users anything.

So I'm sitting here wondering if I should bite the bullet and try it out, or if I should just go shoot a deer on one of the other places I already have permission and it isn't going to cost me anything to do it. On one hand, I can see the benefit to the landowners to help manage access, but I think if its going to work and they want people to sign up as users the pricing is going to have to come down a bit. But then I think hey if I can get access somewhere and I know I'll have the place to myself for the days I choose, maybe its worth it. I don't know.

I am also worried as someone else said that this type of thing could be paving the way for paid access all around in the future.

Also, waterninja you are correct, that's exactly what my friend told me. This service was never intended for hunting permission. Seems there are many kinks they will need to work out if its going to work, and it doesn't do anything to deter trespassing. I asked my friend about that, he told me if you run into someone and there is an issue, that when you book you get a booking sheet or something to print out and bring with you. If the other guy doesn't have one tell him he doesn't have permission. I've already had one run in with some nutjob guide trying to run me off somewhere I had written permission, so I really don't think I want to be getting into it with some stranger who is already breaking the law as it is.

I also agree with what Ranch11 said - these are just faceless people "booking" access to your land that you have never met. I would imagine landowners would feel more comfortable knowing who is on their land and being able to put a face to a name, or at least talk to the person.

Can someone who has signed up share some more information about it? Do you need to put stuff like your vehicle description and plate number there as well?

Some clarification please...

Is your friend is an employee/owner of CLAS, or a landowner?

From what I have been able to construct so far, CLAS is getting PAID by hunters in order to gain access to property for the purpose of hunting.

IMO,
This is literally the definition of Paid Access. It doesn't matter how much the fee is.
With the landowner not receiving any fees then the landowner would not be guilty of an offence.
By demanding/accepting a fee from the person requesting access as a condition of the agreement, CLAS would be guilty of the offence.

I look forward to hearing F&W Enforcement's take on this business model.
I wouldn't invest in this scheme just yet.

Heckler · #35 11-02-2016, 10:09 AM

Hi walking buffalo - no my friend is not an employee of CLAS, he is a member of the colony. I meant he is the one that has been responsible for getting them listed with CLAS and is administering the bookings, etc.

Apologies if that was unclear from my previous post.

An update - I did pay the $30 for one month of access. Until you sign up, you can't see the calendar to view what days are available, which is a little dirty to me. So I signed on only to find out the days I had in mind are already booked. I have sent in booking requests for other dates, so I'll see how it all works. One really annoying thing is if you want to hunt for a block of time, like say two or three days - you can't book it in one shot. You have to click on "Schedule a Booking", then select the property you want, and then when you click the calendar you can only select one date. For additional dates you have to do that whole process again. Its not very efficient.

However, I agree with you. I don't feel that hunters should have to pay to sign on for this service. For example, my wife and I use a scheduling software for our staff. We pay a monthly fee for our business to utilise the service, but all our staff can download the app to and aren't required to pay for anything. It seems to me the the CLAS thing should be similar, or at the very least have users pay a small one time fee to sign up and download the app. My guess is they are banking on hunters who want to use it probably aren't going to pay the $70 for a year, but they will ding people who are going to use it for the month of November and have to pay $30 for it.

I would like to see F&W Enforcements take on this service as well.

cdales · #36 11-02-2016, 03:12 PM

Been told F&W are already looking into this "booking system".

TBark · #37 11-02-2016, 03:44 PM

These guys are either devious or smart not sure which.
The land owner isnt getting paid for access, and these guys are selling info to a booking system, so unsure who is giving the access,
sounds like landowners give the ok by registering.
Playing a fine line, I hope members get something out of it if you pay the price.

TBark

praire hunter · #38 11-02-2016, 03:52 PM

if I remember right, the land owners are also charged $49.99 per sign for each access point.

Albertadiver · #39 07-31-2017, 06:10 PM

This company has been doing a huge advertising push on social media and attending trade shows.

As far as I'm concerned this is paid access for hunting and needs to be stopped.

Very scary with respect to the people they are trying to convert.

Newview01 · #40 07-31-2017, 07:36 PM

Is this an independent company? Or is there a parent company?

JoshT · #41 07-31-2017, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bulldozer

After speaking with the fellow, I can see the benefits for them and any other landowner. They now have control of their land. All bookings and requests are sent to them, and it's easier to manage the number of people on their land per day. He said he can look at any time of the day who and where people are on his property by checking their scans (you scan in when get there at their access point, and scan out when you leave). This guy actually opened up more land to hunting now that he can monitor it which is great for the rest of us.

Not sure what you mean by this? Landowners have always had control of their land. All they need to do is post signs, fence it and watch for suspicious vehicles and report trespassers.

Albertadiver · #42 07-31-2017, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoshT

Not sure what you mean by this? Landowners have always had control of their land. All they need to do is post signs, fence it and watch for suspicious vehicles and report trespassers.

He might not see your post. I bumped this old thread since it had some good info in it and this company that is doing paid access for hunting lands is on a push to involve people that might at first glance think this is a good idea.

JoshT · #43 08-01-2017, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Albertadiver

He might not see your post. I bumped this old thread since it had some good info in it and this company that is doing paid access for hunting lands is on a push to involve people that might at first glance think this is a good idea.

Ooh whoops! Didn't even notice that!
Yes, I had just heard about CLAS this last week so I assumed this was a current thread.

Full Curl Earl · #44 08-01-2017, 08:28 AM

I thought paying for access for hunting in Alberta was an offense?

Albertadiver · #45 08-01-2017, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Full Curl Earl

I thought paying for access for hunting in Alberta was an offense?

It is illegal, that's why I'm so ticked about it. I know F&W is aware of these guys, but not sure why they aren't being dealt with.

Probably some sort of loophole they figured out, or possibly just a blind eye being turned.

BenC68 · #46 08-01-2017, 09:27 AM

Ok, I use to think these guys were kinda cool but I now have a MAJOR problem with them as I'm looking through their properties and they are listing ducks unlimited land, or free to use ponds in the town I live in, as if someone has to pay to have access. I will be contacting Ducks Unlimited to let them know today, and calling my fish and wildlife office.

EDIT: Fish and wildlife recommended I contact RCMP as well, so currently on hold with RCMP

pikergolf · #47 08-01-2017, 09:43 AM

Another leech trying to make money off of our resources.

JWCalgary · #48 08-01-2017, 10:05 AM

I signed up to the site to see how it works, went to book and the site asked for payment.

This is pay for access (in a roundabout way) and I will be sending a note to F&W as well.

Also, there is absolutely no details of the company on their page . . . who the heck are these people?

BenC68 · #49 08-01-2017, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JWCalgary

I signed up to the site to see how it works, went to book and the site asked for payment.

This is pay for access (in a roundabout way) and I will be sending a note to F&W as well.

Also, there is absolutely no details of the company on their page . . . who the heck are these people?

The RCMP officer asked me what I'd like to see done as a result of this, and I said at the very least all PUBLIC access land needs to be taken down. But to my knowledge, paying for access to private land is illegal and if thats the case then I'd like to see the whole website taken down. Ducks Unlimited knows, FW and now RCMP. Hopefully thats enough to get the ball rolling

JWCalgary · #50 08-01-2017, 10:19 AM

They are going to look into it as well. . . . totally pay for access

Disposition of access to land
49(1) No person shall directly or indirectly buy or sell, trade or
barter or offer to buy or sell access to any land for the purpose of hunting any big game or any fur-bearing animals on any land.

Rockman · #51 08-01-2017, 10:40 AM

I've been wondering about this. I agree it falls pretty squarely under paid access and therefore wrong and illegal. Hope it gets shut down and any similar system is kept closed.

Albertadiver · #52 08-01-2017, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenC68

The RCMP officer asked me what I'd like to see done as a result of this, and I said at the very least all PUBLIC access land needs to be taken down. But to my knowledge, paying for access to private land is illegal and if thats the case then I'd like to see the whole website taken down. Ducks Unlimited knows, FW and now RCMP. Hopefully thats enough to get the ball rolling

Great! Thanks for taking that initiative. Hopefully a few of us can make more inquiries and get this shut down totally.

Albertadiver · #53 08-01-2017, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JWCalgary

I signed up to the site to see how it works, went to book and the site asked for payment.

This is pay for access (in a roundabout way) and I will be sending a note to F&W as well.

Also, there is absolutely no details of the company on their page . . . who the heck are these people?

Looks like they are in Lethbridge.

https://www.yellowpages.ca/bus/Alber...seContext=true

Their website even has a 'testimonial' from a hunter in how great it is....

walking buffalo · #54 08-01-2017, 11:58 AM

I spent a fair bit of time discussing the issues with CLAS, F&W Enforcement, F&W Policy, AFGA, ACA and others.

If any of the following statements are considered incorrect, I welcome CLAS or others to correct me.

CLAS requested and received an "opinion" from F&W Enforcement as to the legality of their financial model as it relates to access for the purpose of hunting.
My understanding is that while not unanimous, some individuals at Enforcement suggested that CLAS may not have broken any laws. CLAS and their lawyers have decided to proceed under a belief and a prayer that if and when challenged in court they will be successful or that F&W Enforcement and/of Policy do not take action to call their bluff and simply clarify the regulations as needed.

All involved acknowledge that until a judge decides, all opinions of the legality of CLAS's business model is just an opinion. Note that the main contention is regarding access for the purpose of hunting. Other access purposes appear to be
legal, but with a twist I'll explain later.

This is the pertinent section of the Wildlife Act.

"Disposition of access to land
49(1) No person shall directly or indirectly buy or sell, trade or barter or offer to buy or sell access to any land for the purpose of hunting any big game or any fur‑bearing animals on any land.
(2) No person shall directly or indirectly buy or sell, trade or barter or offer to buy or sell access to any land for the purpose of hunting any game bird except as provided in subsection (3).
(3) No person shall directly or indirectly buy or sell, trade or barter or offer to buy or sell access to any land for the purpose of hunting upland game birds
(a) on privately owned land unless the person holds a licence issued to the person for that purpose pursuant to this Act and except in accordance with the regulations, or
(b) on public land that is not privately owned land."

While it is clear that the requirement for payment to access subscribed lands must occur when using the CLAS system, Enforcement suggested that the potential ability for an individual to use a "side door" approach, as in contact the Landowner directly, somehow excuses the pay for access funds received by the users of CLAS. I still can't grasp this logic.

There were comments from Enforcement that since CLAS is receiving money for "management" of access, and they are not the Landowner, these actions may not constitute payment for access for the purpose of hunting. Again, I suggest this is thin. The Wildlife Act seems to make this clear that the law applies to "Anyone" (No Person).

There are different perspective that need to be considered.

As CLAS is being paid by the Landowner, there is a strong potential that CLAS would be considered an "Agent" of the Landowner, essentially an employee or contractor providing a service. An agent being paid by the Landowner to manage access is not illegal.

The issue is when the client (for the purpose of hunting) has to pay the agent to gain access to the land. In essence, the client is forced to pay for the cost of the agent, the agent is making money by charging for access to hunt. As the Landowner has hired the agent, they could be considered party to the action, thus also in contravention of the Wildlife Act.

A twist that I suspect any Landowners considering using CLAS have not considered is the insurance and liability issues raised in requiring a person to pay for access. There is a strong potential that The Occupier's Liability Act would no longer apply to any access provided through CLAS. It is this Act which limits landowner liability when access to private lands is granted for recreational purposes. People accessing private lands for recreational purposes are considered to be legally "trespassing", thus eliminating most liability for the Landowner.

The requirement of clients to pay for use of the CLAS system may redefine the actions as a commercial activity, which could significantly increase the Landowners and CLAS's liability exposure to those that are granted access.

-----

Regarding DU, ACA and other non-profit groups. There is a desire and need for access management, and the CLAS system may be part of the answer. The management model might even be applicable to our Crown lands such as Grazing Leases.

The issue is the financial model. Requiring an Individual to pay CLAS for access to the system to access lands is the crux of the matter. These groups must consider financing the arrangement in another fashion.

IMO, there is potential with the CLAS model, if another manner of financing the system can be implemented.

However, as it stands now, I have grave concerns.

There is no barrier or limits to the fees being charged by CLAS. What is $50 (?) now could become $500 or $5000 tomorrow. Tier 4 properties are $20, Tier 1 properties are $2000. A one time fee could become a per access fee.

This is Paid Access. Thinly veiled and running on a hope and a prayer that the public doesn't complain too much before they get a foothold.

Albertadiver · #55 08-01-2017, 01:42 PM

Appreciate your research WB!

I say we keep contacting the authorities until we find someone with some common sense and to call a spade a spade.

Albertadiver · #56 08-01-2017, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

All involved acknowledge that until a judge decides, all opinions of the legality of CLAS's business model is just an opinion. Note that the main contention is regarding access for the purpose of hunting. Other access purposes appear to be
legal, but with a twist I'll explain later.

Howdy WB - in your discussions did any Law Enforcement express any appetite to take this before the courts, or does a private person have to file some sort of formal complaint to get things going?

I had contacted thier web provider to let them know they were building a site for illegal purposes.

Here is their response:

Hello ,

Thank you for your inquiry and interest in CLAS.

We have worked very closely with the Alberta Fish and Game, the Department of Wildlife, Policy Division, Environment and Parks, and the Alberta Conservation Association to make sure that what we are doing is well within the legal requirement of the government and the wildlife mandate into the future.

We are simply providing an online resource for land owners to post their properties, communicate their rules and manage their schedules with as little hassle as possible. Conversely, we are giving land users a simple way to request permission, understand the rules for access, plan their visits and the peace of mind knowing that if something goes wrong on the property, the land owner and system is aware that something might have happened to compromise their safety.

By no means are we making it exclusive for users to use CLAS. You are still able to contact and meet with land owners and use the property as directed. It is up to the land owner to determine how their property will be managed. CLAS is a simple software as a service that land owners can chose to use or not to manage their properties.

I appreciate your dedication and commitment to maintaining user access and land owner rights in Alberta. At CLAS we are local land owners and outdoor enthusiasts ourselves. We recognized a need in the market to simplify the process of gaining access to property and providing clarity to the rules and wishes of the land owner.

If you have any further questions, please let us know.

Have a nice day,

Newview01 · #57 08-01-2017, 06:38 PM

The whole thing stinks.

I understand the benefits from a landowners perspective, but that doesn't justify it. Having a private umbrella organization like this controlling access is a slippery slope.

sjemac · #58 08-01-2017, 07:07 PM

I've clicked on about a dozen sites on their map so far. All the ones I clicked on are already ACA listed sites with public access. Not sure why you'd pay to access sites you can get onto for free with not prior notice required.

BenC68 · #59 08-01-2017, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Albertadiver

Howdy WB - in your discussions did any Law Enforcement express any appetite to take this before the courts, or does a private person have to file some sort of formal complaint to get things going?

I had contacted thier web provider to let them know they were building a site for illegal purposes.

Here is their response:

Hello ,

Thank you for your inquiry and interest in CLAS.

We have worked very closely with the Alberta Fish and Game, the Department of Wildlife, Policy Division, Environment and Parks, and the Alberta Conservation Association to make sure that what we are doing is well within the legal requirement of the government and the wildlife mandate into the future.

We are simply providing an online resource for land owners to post their properties, communicate their rules and manage their schedules with as little hassle as possible. Conversely, we are giving land users a simple way to request permission, understand the rules for access, plan their visits and the peace of mind knowing that if something goes wrong on the property, the land owner and system is aware that something might have happened to compromise their safety.

By no means are we making it exclusive for users to use CLAS. You are still able to contact and meet with land owners and use the property as directed. It is up to the land owner to determine how their property will be managed. CLAS is a simple software as a service that land owners can chose to use or not to manage their properties.

I appreciate your dedication and commitment to maintaining user access and land owner rights in Alberta. At CLAS we are local land owners and outdoor enthusiasts ourselves. We recognized a need in the market to simplify the process of gaining access to property and providing clarity to the rules and wishes of the land owner.

If you have any further questions, please let us know.

Have a nice day,

What a load of ****. They are making money off an illegal system. As a tax payer I'm half inclined to take them to court as a public land that my taxes pay for in Cochrane, is listed on there. Same with ducks unlimited, who I've spoken to and it appears they have a management company who may have agreed to this without ducks permission.

I urge everyone to call their rcmp office and file a complaint. As far as I know Cochrane and Calgary have complaints.

cdales · #60 08-01-2017, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenC68

What a load of ****. They are making money off an illegal system. As a tax payer I'm half inclined to take them to court as a public land that my taxes pay for in Cochrane, is listed on there. Same with ducks unlimited, who I've spoken to and it appears they have a management company who may have agreed to this without ducks permission.

I urge everyone to call their rcmp office and file a complaint. As far as I know Cochrane and Calgary have complaints.

Thank you and everyone else who is voicing their concerns with this. I have had a problem with this since seeing it advertised last year. F&W said they have had many calls about it but didn't comment much further. Since I saw them add all sorts of public land it's got me even more upset. IMO it seems like a tactic to suck people into signing up to only find out most of their locations are public land(geared toward new or inexperienced hunters) Hopefully they will be forced to disclose that upfront on the site or better yet be forced to take those locations off.