Federal government paying farmers to post land

That makes no sense... the province is who deals with wildlife permits for hunting and for crop insurance claims. And it's the federal government paying to post land?
 
Aaaand...it's illegal (at least in Alberta) to pay for access to private land for hunting! So how is this fair? The govt can pay to block access but we cannot offer to pay for access?? Talk about an unlevel playing field!
 
skhunter said:
Yes.

If the farmer has a crop lying in swath and the birds get to it an eat it. The farmer puts in a claim, an adjuster comes out and assesses the amount of grain lost to thee birds.

The government then pays the farmer for the amount of grain lost.
Click to expand...

So it's the Federal government paying the compensation? Because the treaty on managing hunting of migratory birds are makes them a federal interest?
 
Last edited:
Grock-co said:
This is exactly the truth, I decide who hunts on my land, if the government wants to pay for that decision all the better. It's the land owners choice nobody else's.
Click to expand...

So if the feds are paying you $3.00/acre to not allow hunting and I offer you $4.00 to exclude from your agreement with them just one acre that the bird are actually on so you can still get the federal money for all your other acres ...;) ?
 
Sounds like a good class action lawsuit for the provincial wildlife federation . The feds sell migratory licenses , take the money and then pay farmers to deny hunters access .
 
TheTooner said:
So if the feds are paying you $3.00/acre to not allow hunting and I offer you $4.00 to exclude from your agreement with them just one acre that the bird are actually on so you can still get the federal money for all your other acres ...;) ?
Click to expand...

That would be paying for access, which is illegal for farmers tto engage in.
 
skhunter said:
I checked it out with a crop insurance adjuster and he confirmed it. He told me it is a federal government program.

The farmer is a friend of mine, not some stranger.
Click to expand...

Ok lets get some proof, there has to be a paper trail if farmers are being paid off. there would be official documents outlining the compensation plan. Lets get real facts and run this up the chains. Some more dirt we can rub in the Liberals face the better. Maybe they will pay farmers for their land and put shanty towns up for irregular visitors.
 
skhunter said:
That would be paying for access, which is illegal for farmers tto engage in.
Click to expand...

I know. Unless I didn't make access for hunting a condition of paying you $4.00 to not sell the feds denial of access for hunting on that one acre, and then it would be up to you to do as you please with that acre. I'd like to do that just to screw with the bureaucrat who is making the arrangements.
 
Dukester said:
Can you show me that in writing?
Click to expand...

I'm not Skhunter but.......................

Sale of hunting rights
43 Subject to this Act and the regulations, no person shall, directly or indirectly,
sell, trade or barter or offer for sale, trade or barter the hunting rights for wildlife
on any land.
1998, c.W-13.12, s.43.
 
Whole thing sounds like a bunch of Yadda-Yadda. Manitoba for years had lure crops planted to keep birds off surrounding farmland. No hunting was permitted as the idea was to hold birds near refuges until after most surrounding crops were off. This was a Provincial directive and had nothing to do with the Federal Government.
 
Pete-aarr said:
Ok lets get some proof, there has to be a paper trail if farmers are being paid off. there would be official documents outlining the compensation plan. Lets get real facts and run this up the chains. Some more dirt we can rub in the Liberals face the better. Maybe they will pay farmers for their land and put shanty towns up for irregular visitors.
Click to expand...

BUoCAG8.jpg
 
skhunter said:
Talked to a farmer today about shooting geese on his land. He told me the federal government is paying him $3.00/acre to keep hunters from shooting the birds on his pea stubble.
Click to expand...
How about giving him $3.5/acre to tell the government to frack off ? ;-)
 
rifleman762 said:
Aaaand...it's illegal (at least in Alberta) to pay for access to private land for hunting! So how is this fair? The govt can pay to block access but we cannot offer to pay for access?? Talk about an unlevel playing field!
Click to expand...

Please quote the relevant law, else, your comment is bs.
 
Dogleg said:
I'm not Skhunter but.......................

Sale of hunting rights
43 Subject to this Act and the regulations, no person shall, directly or indirectly,
sell, trade or barter or offer for sale, trade or barter the hunting rights for wildlife
on any land.
1998, c.W-13.12, s.43.
Click to expand...

Thanks very much Dogleg. There's a whole new topic. Organized camps that defer taxes or otherwise recompense landowners or clubs are a part of the culture here.
 
Dogleg said:
I'm not Skhunter but.......................

Sale of hunting rights
43 Subject to this Act and the regulations, no person shall, directly or indirectly,
sell, trade or barter or offer for sale, trade or barter the hunting rights for wildlife
on any land.
1998, c.W-13.12, s.43.
Click to expand...

The farmer would not be selling "hunting rights", but "access rights", whatever you do on the property is your own choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom