Rude land owners. Here we go again.

[mat2312]

I understand your point of view, but crop damage from animals isn't the only problem.....

So for a farmer to be eligible for a subsidy for crop damage from animals he should have to allow hunting? So then unlimited hunters have free reign on his land to go hunting. Now some, not all, but some hunters cause damage to his crops as well, or leave ruts that the farmer has to deal with, as well as other damage that may occur. Who's responsible for that? The hunters should be held responsible, right? What if they're not caught? How do you know who did it? Sounds to me that there should be a government subsidy for property damage caused by hunters since the government made it a stipulation that they have to be allowed access.

It is what it is, why change it? Hunt crown land, hunt land that you gain permission to hunt on (there's lots of land owners that don't say no to anybody), or buy some land for yourself. You can rent it out to a farmer if it's agricultural land, or keep it specifically for hunting. There's a lot of options for hunters, but this whole idea of forcing farmers to allow access due to government programs is BS.

A landowner should not be obligated to open his land up to every hunter in order to get the subsidy. But for crop damage if there is an obvious preventitive measure which can be taken, it should be. If a landowner has demonstrated that he is accomodating these alternative options he should get the subidy. Each individual case would be examined to determine reasonable accomodation. In some cases, hunting may not be possible, but there are definitely places out there where a few responsible hunters would go along way to prevent damage claims. It should be up to the landowner to show due diligence in preventing crop damage.

I don't suggest changing the rules regarding permission, and a landowner still should be responsible for ensuring he knows the identity of people accessing his property legally (incase something is damaged).

This issue isn't about finding areas to hunt. There is tons of crown land and private landowners which permit. The issue is whether or not we should subsidize landowners who have a demonstrated preventitive measure they can use but fail to do so.

Keep in mind the vast majority of hunters are honest and good people.

 

[joe-nwt]

It's my door and I'll slam it if I want to.

just a note, you cannot post "no hunting" and then go hunting on the land yourself

you can post "no hunting without permission" then your good to go.

you own the land not the wild game that lives there.

Yeah, but the signs face out and only apply to those who are facing the signs and are able to read them............

 

[350 Mag]

A landowner should not be obligated to open his land up to every hunter in order to get the subsidy. But for crop damage if there is an obvious preventitive measure which can be taken, it should be. If a landowner has demonstrated that he is accomodating these alternative options he should get the subidy. Each individual case would be examined to determine reasonable accomodation. In some cases, hunting may not be possible, but there are definitely places out there where a few responsible hunters would go along way to prevent damage claims. It should be up to the landowner to show due diligence in preventing crop damage.

I don't suggest changing the rules regarding permission, and a landowner still should be responsible for ensuring he knows the identity of people accessing his property legally (incase something is damaged).

This issue isn't about finding areas to hunt. There is tons of crown land and private landowners which permit. The issue is whether or not we should subsidize landowners who have a demonstrated preventitive measure they can use but fail to do so.

Keep in mind the vast majority of hunters are honest and good people.

Best Post in this thread very well put...

 

[laughingfool]

Thats what happens when hunters get lazy!!!

Yep bad situation all round. When hunters get lazy they piss off land owners and ecspecially other hunters

 

[bear.23]

A landowner should not be obligated to open his land up to every hunter in order to get the subsidy. But for crop damage if there is an obvious preventitive measure which can be taken, it should be. If a landowner has demonstrated that he is accomodating these alternative options he should get the subidy. Each individual case would be examined to determine reasonable accomodation. In some cases, hunting may not be possible, but there are definitely places out there where a few responsible hunters would go along way to prevent damage claims. It should be up to the landowner to show due diligence in preventing crop damage.

I don't suggest changing the rules regarding permission, and a landowner still should be responsible for ensuring he knows the identity of people accessing his property legally (incase something is damaged).

This issue isn't about finding areas to hunt. There is tons of crown land and private landowners which permit. The issue is whether or not we should subsidize landowners who have a demonstrated preventitive measure they can use but fail to do so.

Keep in mind the vast majority of hunters are honest and good people.

Sure;
Every tom #### and harry should be able to drive in over and around the land totally ignorant of what they are doing... cutting fences opening gates leaving their crap in the middle of the fields so that a farmer can collect on a 10%, that is now a 25%, loss.. due to the hunters driving atv's/ trucks into the field, dragging carcasses, or taking a shortcut becuase there was a deer over there all over crops.. And then who ensures that anything left behind doesn't destroy the machines. Nothing like a 30 caliber case in the corn to make the silo happy

I'm not saying they every hunter is a twit.. all it takes it one. And you can't tell me they don't exist.

I love socialists...

 

[mat2312]

Sure;
Every tom #### and harry should be able to drive in over and around the land totally ignorant of what they are doing... cutting fences opening gates leaving their crap in the middle of the fields so that a farmer can collect on a 10%, that is now a 25%, loss.. due to the hunters driving atv's/ trucks into the field, dragging carcasses, or taking a shortcut becuase there was a deer over there all over crops.. And then who ensures that anything left behind doesn't destroy the machines. Nothing like a 30 caliber case in the corn to make the silo happy

I'm not saying they every hunter is a twit.. all it takes it one. And you can't tell me they don't exist.

I love socialists...

Did you even read my post? The landowner doesn't have to let everyone onto his land. He should just show due diligence to examine all preventative measures including hunting. I don't know about you, but I'd be keeping a close eye on anyone I've allowed to hunt on my land. Don't allow them to use ATVs...don't allow them to shoot in such a place where rounds can damage your equipment. It's not a matter of how MANY animals are harvested, only that the farmer is utilizing all available means of crop protection.

Obviously the vast majority of farmers are NOT suffering damages from hunters or else they would not permit hunting on their lands. There might be the occasional fence left open, or minor unintentional damage, but generally people are respectful.


Calling me a socialist seems ironic considering you are arguing in favour of an unconditional SUBSIDY.

 

[Claybuster]

I don't know about you, but I'd be keeping a close eye on anyone I've allowed to hunt on my land. Don't allow them to use ATVs...don't allow them to shoot in such a place where rounds can damage your equipment.

Now in addition to letting the hunters on to their property farmers have to play babysitter for them?

There might be the occasional fence left open, or minor unintentional damage, but generally people are respectful.

Maybe that's the opinion in the subdivisions but in rural areas, particularly those located near urban areas, hunters are not always held in high regard. One of the reasons why is because guys from the city dismiss "minor" damage and don't understand that leaving the wrong gate open can be a huge deal.

Too many guys with opinions like yours is why there is so much posted land.

 

[liberty]

Maybe that's the opinion in the subdivisions but in rural areas, particularly those located near urban areas, hunters are not always held in high regard. One of the reasons why is because guys from the city dismiss "minor" damage and don't understand that leaving the wrong gate open can be a huge deal.

Too many guys with opinions like yours is why there is so much posted land.

X2, the reason a landowner doesn't want hunters or is rude usually comes from past bad experiences with hunters/trespassers, and I can't say I blame them.

What is needed is to earn their trust, and show them you are respectful of their property. Staying in touch is a big thing for us

If there is a problem, we want to know about it.

The land we hunt on, we regard as a privelige and we visit athe owners regulary, even if it is just to chat. Sometimes just to walk the property with or without them.

The worst thing IMO would be to show up for only for one week a year in Novemeber, in orange jackets and guns a blazing, that would piss me off too.

 

[treebutcher]

...

 

[willr1]

As the owner of 10,000 acres in rural Alberta with geese, some nice big mulie and whitetail bucks on it, my policy is; anyone who asks permission will be allowed to hunt. I used to have alot of problems during hunting season. When my best friend approached me about hunting my land (and guiding some people while he was at it) I struck a deal with him. He has run of the entire place, I give him names and vehicle license #'s of people who have recieved permission, and he punts anyone caught trespassing. This deal has worked well for both of us. Problems have dropped to almost nothing. As a landowner I see no need to be rude in refusing someone permission, but it is our right to give or not.

 

[bear.23]

Did you even read my post? The landowner doesn't have to let everyone onto his land. He should just show due diligence to examine all preventative measures including hunting. I don't know about you, but I'd be keeping a close eye on anyone I've allowed to hunt on my land. Don't allow them to use ATVs...don't allow them to shoot in such a place where rounds can damage your equipment. It's not a matter of how MANY animals are harvested, only that the farmer is utilizing all available means of crop protection.

Obviously the vast majority of farmers are NOT suffering damages from hunters or else they would not permit hunting on their lands. There might be the occasional fence left open, or minor unintentional damage, but generally people are respectful.


Calling me a socialist seems ironic considering you are arguing in favour of an unconditional SUBSIDY.

Yeah I read your post... You said let hunters in or do due diligence to prevent animals from doing anything from the crops.. I guess you advocate things like 7 foot fences or electrified fences... Of course you expect I'd pay for that too? Obviously most farmers make preparation and spell out the rules.. But there is a reason farmers pay for crop insurance (ah yes we pay for it)

Neighbor of mine left a skidder in the woods one year.. He blew a hydraulic line and couldn't get it out before the season started.. He talked to the land owner and he assured him he would talk to all the hunters coming onto the property.Strange how a big yellow machine would have 3 bullet holes in it 2 weeks later... I've got 2 bullet holes in my wood shed that I didn't put there and I don't even allow people on my property...

I got a hundred acres... and I have better things to do with my day then to keep track of hunters and I'm pretty sure they would rather not have me join their hunting party...

Your advocating that I allow people who do not have land to be allowed to use my land becuase I take advantage of an insurance that I pay for.... if it quacks like a duck it could be socialism..

Let me ask you a question.. Do you own land? where you could hunt?

Why not...

 

[scanner]

Maybe if enough hunters (say, members here on this site) joined together with an equal share of dollars, we could buy rural land, and keep it for ourselves to hunt on.

Imagine acers of land purchased under a group of hunters and located in every province.

I know some might say it sounds like a Wall-Mart world, but the fact is many folk reaching retirement age are selling their urban property and moving to the country. First thing they do is put up "NO TREASPASSING OR HUNTING" signs. There goes our hunting field we once had permission to hunt on.

If we organized and put our money and efforts together, we all could own shares in excllent hunting lands in all provinces, where we can just show up and hunt with an equal understanding to basic rules and respect of others, etc.

We all can own land. We can form a realastate board, sort to say, and be owners in land that belongs to us and something we can pass onto our kids for the future.

Take action.

 

[CROWCA]

We cant get a gun day picnic organized,buying land should work out just fine.

When I give a land owner some small token,game ect, most want to give you something back,I always say you let me hunt here there is not much to hunt on my city property,which usually gets a laugh.

The hunters who don't respect the land owners are ignorant and should reevaluate there relationships and the need of most hunters who require others land to enjoy there sport of hunting.

If you are a land owner that allows hunting or one that doesn't you have my apology for the ignorant ass holes who would trespass on property they should not be on,and the stupid posts by some in this thread.

To any land owners who grants permission to hunt thank you,to those that don't I hope in the future you will take a chance on a responsible hunter and give them access to hunt,most of us are responsible but there are ass holes in every group.

The area we hunt requires written permission to trespass,which I think makes the most sense,you produce the paper or get the fine,perhaps it should be like that nation wide.

 

[weaselsrippedmyflesh]

It seems to me there are a lot of conflicts in this thread. The guy acted like a #### (allegedly), and people respond that farmers and landowners are dicks because of such-and-such a reason? They are not....some people just are. I took it to mean that someone is disappointed in the behavior of someone else. My personal dealings with landowners have typically been good, but people in general not so much. The world needs less of this kind of thing; regardless of what people are asking/ not asking for. Yes someone ripped off my gas can after I lent it/ broke something/was unthankful, but I refuse to be a jerk to everyone I meet that needs a hand, or even just wants something. I am always there with the wrench to lend, even if it grows legs and walks off. I don't own "huge tracts of land" myself, but I would most likely let someone hunt on it, and then get totally stressed out worrying about my stuff It is also likely that I wouldn't kick a farmer in the nuts for asking me for directions to the nearest suspenders store

 

[rickslady]

bad day?

Maybe the guy had a bad experience or who knows..... mabye he was just having a bad day. Don't give up!

I
The farmer who owned the field, just said "NO!" and slammed the door in my face

 

[mat2312]

Yeah I read your post... You said let hunters in or do due diligence to prevent animals from doing anything from the crops.. I guess you advocate things like 7 foot fences or electrified fences... Of course you expect I'd pay for that too? Obviously most farmers make preparation and spell out the rules.. But there is a reason farmers pay for crop insurance (ah yes we pay for it)

Neighbor of mine left a skidder in the woods one year.. He blew a hydraulic line and couldn't get it out before the season started.. He talked to the land owner and he assured him he would talk to all the hunters coming onto the property.Strange how a big yellow machine would have 3 bullet holes in it 2 weeks later... I've got 2 bullet holes in my wood shed that I didn't put there and I don't even allow people on my property...

I got a hundred acres... and I have better things to do with my day then to keep track of hunters and I'm pretty sure they would rather not have me join their hunting party...

Your advocating that I allow people who do not have land to be allowed to use my land becuase I take advantage of an insurance that I pay for.... if it quacks like a duck it could be socialism..

Let me ask you a question.. Do you own land? where you could hunt?

Why not...

If your crop is damaged, do you get a subsidy or an insurance payout? Is the insurance policy subsidized by the government? If it's a straight business deal than all bets are off. I was under the assumption that farmers get a government subsidy for crop damage. I thought it was tax dollars going to refund damage done by deer (or the like) which can be somewhat prevented by the hunting of these animals.

 

[jtoews80]

Buy your own f**King land then.

You seriously figure that farmers that don't allow hunters they don't know or want on their land tshould be denied crop compensation? That is F**King retarded.

+1

As well, the "you own the land not the wild animals" crap gets old too.
Do you really think you'd find that many geese just randomly landing on a field if it wasn't planted to something that was suitible as food for said birds???
I mean, it could happen, but when was the last time you were watching a football game and suddenly a couple hundred honkers comes in and sets @ the 40 yard line?? Not likely.



My policies:

For deer,

I feel bad saying no because about 50% don't ask and get to hunt there anyway, because they just poach.

However, my land gets hunted by enough people with permission and lots without. It really doesn't need anymore hunting.

For geese,

I don't hunt geese and would likely give permission if I figured the people wouldn't cause issues. We are building a house at the other end of the field and there is a power line I don't want shot, so there is room to have trouble.


Anybody that figures I owe it to them can go and try their luck elsewhere.


JT.