Canadian Land Access Systems????

[kujoseto]

Originally Posted by Newview01

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.

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.

I'm shocked this is permissible. Allowing stuff like this will ruin our province

[walking buffalo]

I'm glad you people get it.


I truly believe that the guys at CLAS are well intentioned and good at heart.

It is the other guys following this lead that I am worried about.

[R3illy]

Buffalo you said clas is paying the land owners? Where did you read or hear this?

I can see why this would be beneficial for all parties but it also opens things up to abuses from all involved. Most importantly having a private company managing this for the public is not in the interest of any of us.

I find it very misleading that they are placing public lands into their directory of land that their managing.

[hillbillyreefer]

It sounds like it could be a good tool to help both landowners and hunters.
You guys constantly calling landowners can get to be like telemarketers, annoying as hell.
Someone scheduling and setting down the rules for you guys as a service to landowners may get some guys permission they may not have received otherwise. I know I get a bit crusty after after too many calls.
I was really crusty last year with the calls and guys driving in to ask permission then wanting to stand around shooting the crap. We were installing new bins for the wet grain the combines, they'd just driven past were taking off. I don't have time for hunters right now, if you can't see I'm ****ing busy, you aren't smart enough to see a deer either.

Oh and private land that I hold the deed to, I should be able to do whatever the hell I please with.

Lease or other public lands, yeah these guys are scamming you.

[sjemac]

Originally Posted by R3illy

Buffalo you said clas is paying the land owners? Where did you read or hear this?

I can see why this would be beneficial for all parties but it also opens things up to abuses from all involved. Most importantly having a private company managing this for the public is not in the interest of any of us.

I find it very misleading that they are placing public lands into their directory of land that their managing.

The vast majority of their listings are already public. You can't book a time on them anyway yet CLAS is hoping that you'll pay them for the illusion that you can. Right now it is bordering on fraudulent behaviour.

[R3illy]

youll get abuses from hunters using this service by requesting access to every piece of land out there.

Hillbilly - i somewhat agree that you should be able to do whatever you want with your land within reasoning but our laws dont allow it. Everyone else like big box stores, outfitters, the govt etc etc are proffiting off our wild life but land owners cant?

My one friend cant rent his cabin and allow hunting on his land as its too grey of an area but If all you need is a 3rd party managing access into your land why wouldnt a farmer rent access via air bnb and post what they allow for their land.

Its the same idea as clas. Pay for managing land Using a 3rd party and not really involved.

[CMichaud]

I don't own the animals that cross or hang out on my land.

Hell - I don't even own my land really. If I don't pay taxes the government will repossess it.

This whole business is a slippery slope. The last thing we want is private hunting reserves for the rich.

I only have a 1/4 section so ain't own much but I would never cede access control to some third party.

[BenC68]

So apparently the young officer I was dealing with in Cochrane doesn't see this as fraud simply because of what it states on their website. If thats the case, as I told her, I have a ton of business opportunities. I will be following this up with fish and wildlife as well as a supervisor at the RCMP office here in town.

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by BenC68

So apparently the young officer I was dealing with in Cochrane doesn't see this as fraud simply because of what it states on their website. If thats the case, as I told her, I have a ton of business opportunities. I will be following this up with fish and wildlife as well as a supervisor at the RCMP office here in town.

Thank you for taking the time.

[gman1978]

I wonder who the main push or money man is behind this venture. It's kind of like they are trying to sell ice to an Eskimo.

[Albertadiver]

I think nobody disagrees that getting access to public lease land can be a nightmare at times with shady things going on. But to turn this into paid access run by a private company just makes it even worse, and even more prone to abuse by those 'in the know'.


For private property, I think that still needs to be handled the old fashioned and standard way. We've had countless threads on appropriate ways of asking permission, and as long as people stay polite and considerate of the property owners time and property, then I don't see that needing any outside management.

[R3illy]

curious to hear from land owners their thoughts on this. If you make it this easy for people to access your land youll have massive amounts of requests...

I see benefits for public land but from a private land owner perspective i dont see the benefit in allowing total strangers you never met a super easy way to access your land. This will only increase 100x the number of people on your land.

Now this is different if the land owner is being paid as walking buffalo mentioned but i didnt see where he read that.

[R3illy]

if anyone can create a website for someone else to manage their land every land owner can do this for next to nothing. Have a family member who doesnt own any interest in your land set it up and refer every hunter to your land managing website for access.

If you own enough land why wouldnt you do this instead of using clas.

[BenC68]

Originally Posted by pikergolf

Thank you for taking the time.

I'm not done yet. I am passionately against this and those that feel the same, please feel free to send me a PM so we can discuss further.

[The moose]

I know a land owner that lets one of his long time hunter( private and lease) manage the lease access thru a online fill-able calendar. When people as for access , he sends them the callendar to fill in with details of person, vehicle, # of people and dates of access.

I think this was the best I have ever heard of and once it was full its full. Clean, Honest and non disputable.

[R3illy]

Originally Posted by The moose

I know a land owner that lets one of his long time hunter( private and lease) manage the lease access thru a online fill-able calendar. When people as for access , he sends them the callendar to fill in with details of person, vehicle, # of people and dates of access.

I think this was the best I have ever heard of and once it was full its full. Clean, Honest and non disputable.

which isnt against the law. No cash is changing hands. Your friend may as well charge for access to his calendar that his friend manages as thats all clas is doing with no fight from authorities.

[The moose]

Originally Posted by R3illy

which isnt against the law. No cash is changing hands. Your friend may as well charge for access to his calendar that his friend manages as thats all clas is doing with no fight from authorities.

exactly. And that's why I pointed this way out. pretty easy to set up too from a landowner side of things.

for the record I dont believe what CLAS is providing should be lawful.

[Albertadiver]

So I'm wondering how this gets tested in a court of law? Does a regular guy go and file a complaint? Or does this get brought forward by law enforcement (RCMP or F&W)?

[R3illy]

an old friend had a start up that was told from police to cease and desist or the principles would face arrest. Their company operated in other provinces with zero issues but in edmonton it was a bit of an untested grey area that the police took a stance on.

They clearly listened to the police and may be able to sue for losses in the mean time but the police wouldnt allow them to operate in every aspect that they wanted. I dont see how or why f&w or the rcmp would allow this to openly continue.

RCMP need to act simply on the fact every landowner can create a website for the land they own to manage paid access for their land.

[hillbillyreefer]

Originally Posted by R3illy

an old friend had a start up that was told from police to cease and desist or the principles would face arrest. Their company operated in other provinces with zero issues but in edmonton it was a bit of an untested grey area that the police took a stance on.

They clearly listened to the police and may be able to sue for losses in the mean time but the police wouldnt allow them to operate in every aspect that they wanted. I dont see how or why f&w or the rcmp would allow this to openly continue.

RCMP need to act simply on the fact every landowner can create a website for the land they own to manage paid access for their land.

Or we could just charge when you drive in to ask permission, or we could tell you to screw off and go hunt the lease/forest lands.

Read my signature line.

[R3illy]

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

Or we could just charge when you drive in to ask permission, or we could tell you to screw off and go hunt the lease/forest lands.

Read my signature line.

I totally think landowners should be free to do as they please. They should be able to profit off the wild life just like every other business out there but we cant allow our current laws to be ignored when someone wants to operate in a grey area.

My friends start up company had a hard line brought down on them even though they were operating legally in other provinces and had previous court cases tested that set precedent for their company.

The rcmp or f&w need to decide if this is acceptable and if it is why would farmers use clas instead of their own website that a 2 yr old could make.

[hillbillyreefer]

Originally Posted by R3illy

I totally think landowners should be free to do as they please. They should be able to profit off the wild life just like every other business out there but we cant allow our current laws to be ignored when someone wants to operate in a grey area.

My friends start up company had a hard line brought down on them even though they were operating legally in other provinces and had previous court cases tested that set precedent for their company.

The rcmp or f&w need to decide if this is acceptable and if it is why would farmers use clas instead of their own website that a 2 yr old could make.

.

[ratherbeoutside]

Interesting article on CLAS that just happened to be in the Sunny South News that came today.

[Albertadiver]

Originally Posted by ratherbeoutside

Interesting article on CLAS that just happened to be in the Sunny South News that came today.

It seems like these guys are well intentioned, but that article looks like an advertising piece.

Still, at the end of the day this is still a huge deal. Pay for access opens up a HUGE can of worms. I understand landowners thoughts because my family has land as well.

[BenC68]

To update, I spoke with the head fish and game officer today in Cochrane and he assured me that their major investigations unit is keeping tabs on them. He compared what they are doing to the ihunter app except taking it a bit further. Apparently the land owners pay them to manage the access and we as hunters in turn pay for the ability to access the information.

He did state that it becomes an issue when a hunter asks a farmer for permission who is signed up with CLAS and that farmer directs me to the website for access as that now becomes pay to hunt. Didn't make a ton of sense but that's the verdict I got. They are also looking into the public land being posted on there as well. The RCMP also spoke to a share holder and have me the same run down. I stated to both I was very disappointed by this and can really see that in 5 years hunting in alberta will be a pay to play system.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by R3illy

Buffalo you said clas is paying the land owners? Where did you read or hear this?

I can see why this would be beneficial for all parties but it also opens things up to abuses from all involved. Most importantly having a private company managing this for the public is not in the interest of any of us.

I find it very misleading that they are placing public lands into their directory of land that their managing.

No, I don't recall saying this.

This is what I posted.

"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. "

Originally Posted by BenC68

To update, I spoke with the head fish and game officer today in Cochrane and he assured me that their major investigations unit is keeping tabs on them. He compared what they are doing to the ihunter app except taking it a bit further. Apparently the land owners pay them to manage the access and we as hunters in turn pay for the ability to access the information.

He did state that it becomes an issue when a hunter asks a farmer for permission who is signed up with CLAS and that farmer directs me to the website for access as that now becomes pay to hunt. Didn't make a ton of sense but that's the verdict I got. They are also looking into the public land being posted on there as well. The RCMP also spoke to a share holder and have me the same run down. I stated to both I was very disappointed by this and can really see that in 5 years hunting in alberta will be a pay to play system.

As it was explained to me by Richard Lyons of F&W Enforcement.

I got the impression his heart was not into the reasoning he could offer regarding F&W Enforcement's opinion on this issue. Several F&W officer's were equally unsure of the logic used by the gov's lawyers in this discussion.

How the availability of a "sidedoor" legal action can make another illegal action legal is beyond my understanding of how the law works.

I suspect that there are other factors at hand here.
Many will recall that Game Farming was illegal in Alberta....


F&W Policy (Matt Besko) intends to get their own legal opinion, and bring up the matter to the hunting stakeholder representatives. They will consider an amendment to the Wildlife Act if needed and desired.
I'm not sure if this has been completed yet, will look into it.
Maybe Matt should be given a reminder?

Keep in mind that AEP is the ministry in charge of the Wildlife Act regulations.
Complaints/concerns should also be directed to Minister Phillips office.
She needs to be involved.

Where does AFGA and the other hunting stakeholders stand on this matter?
Concerned hunters should find out.


Regarding the ACA, I was expecting something like this.
Remember that the ACA receives the majority of it's funding from Alberta's hunters and fishers. And now they are making us pay again to access land WE already paid for!

The ACA needs to account for their decision.
For those that are going to make an effort to stop this, don't forget to contact them as well. Pat Long and AO's Brian Bildson may be interested in clarifying ACA's action.


Let's not forget the Liability concerns raised if the Occupier's Liability Act is no longer applicable to Lands accessed under the CLAS system. I expect that the ACA has done the research. I would hate for Albertans to have to pay a huge settlement because the ACA didn't do their homework or decided to be the guinea pig in a test case.


As a closing note, right from the CLAS website homepage.

CLAS provides exclusive access.

CLAS ensures safety for owners and users.

[BenC68]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

No, I don't recall saying this.

This is what I posted.

"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. "






As it was explained to me by Richard Lyons of F&W Enforcement.

I got the impression his heart was not into the reasoning he could offer regarding F&W Enforcement's opinion on this issue. Several F&W officer's were equally unsure of the logic used by the gov's lawyers in this discussion.

How the availability of a "sidedoor" legal action can make another illegal action legal is beyond my understanding of how the law works.

I suspect that there are other factors at hand here.
Many will recall that Game Farming was illegal in Alberta....


F&W Policy (Matt Besko) intends to get their own legal opinion, and bring up the matter to the hunting stakeholder representatives. They will consider an amendment to the Wildlife Act if needed and desired.
I'm not sure if this has been completed yet, will look into it.
Maybe Matt should be given a reminder?

Keep in mind that AEP is the ministry in charge of the Wildlife Act regulations.
Complaints/concerns should also be directed to Minister Phillips office.
She needs to be involved.

Where does AFGA and the other hunting stakeholders stand on this matter?
Concerned hunters should find out.


Regarding the ACA, I was expecting something like this.
Remember that the ACA receives the majority of it's funding from Alberta's hunters and fishers. And now they are making us pay again to access land WE already paid for!

The ACA needs to account for their decision.
For those that are going to make an effort to stop this, don't forget to contact them as well. Pat Long and AO's Brian Bildson may be interested in clarifying ACA's action.


Let's not forget the Liability concerns raised if the Occupier's Liability Act is no longer applicable to Lands accessed under the CLAS system. I expect that the ACA has done the research. I would hate for Albertans to have to pay a huge settlement because the ACA didn't do their homework or decided to be the guinea pig in a test case.


As a closing note, right from the CLAS website homepage.

CLAS provides exclusive access.

CLAS ensures safety for owners and users.

I appreciate you looking into a few matters, I've made it clear to Ducks Unlimited that as a member I'm not happy the properties are up there, and I believe that Ducks should do the right thing and have them taken down. I'm still awaiting confirmation by based on my conversations, they were going to push for that.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

As a closing note, right from the CLAS website homepage.

CLAS provides exclusive access.

[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).

[fish_e_o]

Originally Posted by BenC68

I appreciate you looking into a few matters, I've made it clear to Ducks Unlimited that as a member I'm not happy the properties are up there, and I believe that Ducks should do the right thing and have them taken down. I'm still awaiting confirmation by based on my conversations, they were going to push for that.

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