Hunting Permission: Let’s talk Price

Brutus said:
I don't get the pessimism here. I was a working stiff in Southern Saskatchewan where 85 percent of the land is privately owned for just short of 11 years. Mysteriously I did not pay cash to hunt several superb hunting acreages.

But I did buy a land owner map, pre season scout good looking areas. Knocked on doors and made friends.

It's called human interaction.
You should actually try it sometime.
Click to expand...

So did I - that's why I'm lucky enough to hunt where I do - My land owner does not charge for hunting his land. That may change when the son takes over.

All I'm saying that Paid Hunting is a very dangerous road to go down on, which many people on this thread seem comfortable with. I thought I was really clear on the reasons why this is a bad idea for the sake of the sport.
 
PSE said:
The rational for not allowing charging to hunt is that contrary to how it is in many parts of Europe, the Crown or land owner does not own the wildlife. The wildlife belong to all the residents of the province. Therefore in this country it is possible for anyone to jump through all the hoops and finally get a hunting license and/or be selected in a draw to hunt a certain ### and species in a certain time frame in a particular land zone called a Wildlife Management Unit.

Sometimes there is Crown land available - sometimes not. If not, permission must be obtained. Charging for hunting is an added expense that while it was common in Europe was never common here and stretches the budget of what is already an expensive pastime for the average working stiff.

Hunting needs hunters to survive. If paying for hunting becomes widespread and common there will be fewer hunters and therefore less popular support for it and then finally direct attacks to eliminate it as what is now happening in B.C. (No more Grizzly bear hunt)

In Europe there is widespread anti hunting sentiment. In fact it is seen there as cruel but even more so it is a class struggle against the rich and well connected in which the average citizen has no hope of ever participating in.

I don't want to see that happening here. That is all I have to say.
Click to expand...

Landowners don't claim to own the wildlife, just the land.
 
I can’t speak for the “city boys”, but it’s a simple equation.
Less hunters=less firearm owners=Less votes=no firearms.
The liberals (and PCs of old) are, and will, make it more difficult and onerous to obtain a firearms license. Without an incentive, like reasonable hunting costs, the first part of the equation kicks in. Inevitably followed by the rest. There are no “if’s “.
skhunter said:
How many of you city boys are willing to open your backyards for free public use.
Click to expand...
 
And as as aside, I’m not disagreeing with the premise of the new law. I’ve got mine, as my kids will. Just concerned for the future.
Although if you want to see what will turn the tide to “yes” for most people just got to tonights CTv’s news and check out the “indigenous” response. Feels he should be able to hunt anywhere, anytime... no doubt including night hunting. One law for all, or this country is done.
 
Peace River said:
And as as aside, I’m not disagreeing with the premise of the new law. I’ve got mine, as my kids will. Just concerned for the future.
Although if you want to see what will turn the tide to “yes” for most people just got to tonights CTv’s news and check out the “indigenous” response. Feels he should be able to hunt anywhere, anytime... no doubt including night hunting. One law for all, or this country is done.
Click to expand...

He was talking with forked tongue. He wasn't allowed on private land without permission before the trespass law changed.
 
PSE said:
The rational for not allowing charging to hunt is that contrary to how it is in many parts of Europe, the Crown or land owner does not own the wildlife. The wildlife belong to all the residents of the province. Therefore in this country it is possible for anyone to jump through all the hoops and finally get a hunting license and/or be selected in a draw to hunt a certain ### and species in a certain time frame in a particular land zone called a Wildlife Management Unit.

Sometimes there is Crown land available - sometimes not. If not, permission must be obtained. Charging for hunting is an added expense that while it was common in Europe was never common here and stretches the budget of what is already an expensive pastime for the average working stiff.

Hunting needs hunters to survive. If paying for hunting becomes widespread and common there will be fewer hunters and therefore less popular support for it and then finally direct attacks to eliminate it as what is now happening in B.C. (No more Grizzly bear hunt)

In Europe there is widespread anti hunting sentiment. In fact it is seen there as cruel but even more so it is a class struggle against the rich and well connected in which the average citizen has no hope of ever participating in.

I don't want to see that happening here. That is all I have to say.
Click to expand...


The trouble with your reasoning is that the Crown absolutely does own the wildlife. Public ownership is a comforting and persistent myth.
 
So in sum, this is what we have learned from the thread thus far:

1) that bottle of alcohol you gave the landowner before or after hunting his/her land...absolutely is payment for permission. You would not have given them sweet jack all if it wasn’t for them owning land you wanted permission specifically for hunting. After all, you aren’t giving that bottle or what not to the government for hunting crown land...are you?

2) access to good hunting land is decreasing because of other land uses that are profitable which, in today’s economy forces owners of land to find uses of land that support their livelihoods. This has the added effect of decreasing habitat and thus wildlife populations in general. For hunters this means less spaces to hunt and less animals.

3) permission to hunt is a negotiation between someone who wants something (they will benefit from hunting) and someone that may not have anything to gain or may in fact have something to lose (the person granting access), often the landowner who is foregoing his chance to shoot that deer or moose or whatever.

4) payment for access may actually lead to better opportunities for hunters as exclusive access can be secured and quantity and quality of both hunters and game can be negotiated at this time. This does not as is often believed have the effect of pricing people out of hunting. It actually creates a market that enables people who want to hunt are able to engage in mutually beneficial transactions with those that hold the controls over access to the best places where wildlife lives, which inadvertently costs money and someone has to pay that cost.

5) conservation costs money and paying for access sends landowners a signal financially to leave some areas as they are. Those areas that are the most productive for wildlife and are the most sought after for hunting, command the highest prices. And this is a good thing because those areas will remain as habitat and thus such areas will be productive at producing wildlife both in terms of quantity and quality that will be acceptable for hunters.

6) access to private lands and the ability to compensate land owners for this access has no effect on crown land hunting access. In terms of hunting pressures on crown lands, the more private land access that is granted, the lower is the pressure on public lands and the greater is the chance that a public land hunter will be successful.
 
skhunter said:
What points do you dispute?
Click to expand...

qeucBxd.jpg



And with that, Im out!!!! Tell Gerald I say hi.
 
PSE said:
Yeah along with the thousands of others that can't or won't pay the fees (no doubt ever increasing and with tax) demanded by the land owner. All of a sudden hunting no longer provides an attractive and affordable way to enjoy the outdoors.

Yet again, we lose privileges that made this country great and we're no longer any different than most citizens of Britain or Germany who can only dream of a hunt.

But hey, as long as you and the gov't are making money - that's the most important thing.

Maybe you can charge for bird watching too.:mad:
Click to expand...

Since I am still a citizen of Germany and still hunt there do tell me how we are dreaming of a hunt. I am curious where you get your information from?
 
Buck_Up said:
Some local farmers whom I know, (but whose land I do not hunt) have inquired of me, knowing that I hunt, what I would be willing to pay. They have people already hunting their land, and are considering making some $$ from them.
Usually when I ask what led them to believe this was a good idea, they reference it being commonplace in the U.S.

I always respond with a recommendation, which is based on advice I received from one knowledgeable on the subject.

They ought, for insurance considerations, first speak with their insurance broker, and perhaps their lawyer, ask recommended liability insurance coverage, and what impact on their premium, a fee for hunting will incur.
Once a fee is rendered for a service, there is a much greater exposure to liability for the party receiving funds for a service. Generally, the increased insurance premium and risk is not worth whatever premium they are considering charging hunters.

It is my hope that fee for access does not expand here in Ontario. Hunting is a great sport, and it ought remain equal access regardless of your bank balance. A bit of common respect, courtesy and relationship goes a long way in securing access to agricultural land. Personally, I do not ever plan to pay for access. I have more than enough land on which to hunt now, some private, some public.
Click to expand...

Lots of talk that the Canada in the Rough boys are leasing farms now. $1000/year for 10 years.

So it begins......
 
Last edited:
I indirectly pay/paid for land access... because I purchased my own hunting property. Since I originally purchased the land, 7 years ago, the appraised value is now 220% of what I originally paid. (according to a recent appraisal)
The non-tangible recurring investment payback is the exclusive use, and the enjoyment of doing all the improvements. Lots of time invested, but lots of reward.
The long term financial investment payback will be when it gets sold, which will only occur if I am dead, or unable to hunt.
 
If someone has a Ferrari (ski boat, mountain villa) and you beg to use it; or calculatingly befriend the guy to get access to it you'd be branded as a begger, suck-holer, or manipulative user. Not much of a friend at all. Imagine a law that forced everyone to do that.

Now imagine finding out that all those things can be rented. You can even get a blonde combination seatcover/hood ornament to go with it. Isn't that a game changer? Isn't that better than putting on your best fake smile and begging? Way better than getting doors slammed in your face too.

In most cases a Ferrari is peanuts compared to the value of the land people want to use for nothing. Some will still think that if they have to or want to be beggers then everyone else should too. Others would prefer to pay their own way. Making paying your own way illegal is ludicrous.
 
Last edited:
holzmeister said:
Since I am still a citizen of Germany and still hunt there do tell me how we are dreaming of a hunt. I am curious where you get your information from?
Click to expand...

So,maybe,you could enlighten us. Our information is that European hunting,especially,in your country,is a sport reserved for only the uber rich completely out of reach for ordinary folks.
 
skhunter said:
Yep, just like more and more people are not getting their kids into hockey because of the cost. Nobody's blaming CCM.
Click to expand...

But, if I have always dealt with the same sporting goods store owner that sells ccm equipment for years as my kids grew up and needed new equipment... and that sporting goods store told me when a sale priced batch of equipment arrived every year before anyone else... if I gave him a thank you gift, you'd call me unethical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom