In Alberta we have landowner licenses.The landowner( the official titleholder ) has the rights to these licenses regardless of whether he rents out the land or farms it himself.He can of course choose to transfer these rights to a family member that is involved in the farming operation or to a shareholder,or the person operating the land.However under Alberta law he can not charge for these rights or accept any compensation of any kind.Because of the law,the renter can have no legal claim to the landowner licenses just because he rents the land.
an interesting problem-who's in the right?
- Thread starter kevin.303
- Start date
In Alberta we have landowner licenses.The landowner( the official titleholder ) has the rights to these licenses regardless of whether he rents out the land or farms it himself.He can of course choose to transfer these rights to a family member that is involved in the farming operation or to a shareholder,or the person operating the land.However under Alberta law he can not charge for these rights or accept any compensation of any kind.Because of the law,the renter can have no legal claim to the landowner licenses just because he rents the land.
That's interesting, but leaves open the question as to what "access" has to do with hunting rights, let alone exclusive hunting rights. I think the morale of the story is that both legal rights and expectations should be addressed in a written lease agreement specifically mentioning hunting rights. The doubt the law can flout the terms of an agreement.
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
Its a interesting situation. I can see that there would be problems if the individual who obtained the lease removed gravel or drained a slough, because these are things that change the nature of the land he has leased.
In the case of hunting, by virtue of his lease he has permission to be on that land, and the deer does not belong to the land owner, it belongs to the crown and is not part of the land. Shooting of the deer does not change the land in anyway. Therefore, I don't see a problem with the fellow hunting on that parcel, but common sence dictates that his objection to hunting by a memeber of the family of the land owner, could negatively impact any future lease agreement he may wish to make with the owner. If the owner of the land had a problem with hunting on that land, then I would expect that restriction to be spelled out in the lease agreement.
In the case of hunting, by virtue of his lease he has permission to be on that land, and the deer does not belong to the land owner, it belongs to the crown and is not part of the land. Shooting of the deer does not change the land in anyway. Therefore, I don't see a problem with the fellow hunting on that parcel, but common sence dictates that his objection to hunting by a memeber of the family of the land owner, could negatively impact any future lease agreement he may wish to make with the owner. If the owner of the land had a problem with hunting on that land, then I would expect that restriction to be spelled out in the lease agreement.
Some further research on this subject (Chesires) suggests that the right to hunted game belongs to the owner or the rightful occupier of the land. It could hardly be said that the farmer leasing the right to raise crops is an occupier of the land. His rights are limited to those acquired under the agreement. It would seem logical that the rights belong to the land owner, except where conveyed under the lease or licence to the farmer, with the onus on the farmer to prove the extent of the rights purportedly conveyed to him, as clearly all residual rights in the land remain with the owner. Bottom line, unless the farmer can show he is truly a tenant, having gained all rights to occupation of the land, the right to hunt would remain with the owner and could be exercised to the extent that they do not interfere with the rights conveyed under the lease.
Your example is misleading and does not apply to the situation. Here is a better example. If I lend you my truck so that you can move a fridge, does that give you the right to drag race it? The answer is, NO. I lent you the car for a specific purpose. That does not give you the right to do whatever you want with the car. An other example would be if you ask me if I could use my bathroom, that would not give you the right to sleep in my bed.
The problem is it isn't clear what the agreed usage of the land is. Was it only for farming or was it an exlusive access to the land? Is there a contract? Also, if he is using a cache built by you then logic would say he is wrong. If I lent you my garage to store your car, that would not give you access to my whole house. That would also not refuse me the right to let somebody else store things in my garage.
I think it depends on the rental agreement if he has rented the land then it techinaclly is thier property what ever they rented or leased for that period of time unless provisions were made otherwise. I would suspect if the rental agreement stipulates for agr purposes only that is differant, you need to sit down with your relative and ask him or her what the agreement reads. After that the three of you should get together and work something out!!
Last edited:
