Know Your Rights As A Fisherman And Watch Out For A Holes

[Wolfie]

Life is way to freaking short to worry about this kinda crap. If a landowner goes that far out of his way to post signs or come down to the river with a gun then turn around and go fish somewhere else. If a gun is involved then call the Police after you leave, if it’s a sign issue and a pissing match about land and access rights then contact the powers that be and do some digging and find out the facts then go from there.

But really do we need someone to get shot or attacked by a Wolf just so you can fish a Km of stream? I really don’t think so.

 

I highlighted the part that interests me..I haven't fished many places in this province, other than the Bow, and that piddle creek I had mentioned, so fortunately for me, I've not encountered any trouble...that is of YET..but I'm sure it will come, and more than likely it will be on the Bow in the fall..if I'm still here that is. Now, if a gun is produced, you can take this to the bank...old or young that person will be charged with assault with a deadly weapon if it is pointed at me or my wolf, that is a given, because first off my wolf would instinctively want to protect me her Alpha partner, [just like any dog would for it's master], and second that person needs to have their head examined if they take the law into their own hands..

 

..for the rest of you post ..I agree life is to short , just leave but take care of business when they least expect it in the proper way..............................................Wolfie

 

 

 

[bhurt]

..however..ignorant fools who mouth off, and try and play tough, usually wind up calming down and saying sorry to me, after they witness what my Wolf has to say to their loud voices...[img]

 

Here is what you originally said wolfie.......

 

Where do you say anything about your "WOLF" doing something because a gun is pointed, you state pretty clear:

 

after they witness what my Wolf has to say to their loud voices

 

To me and I am sure to the police or any other law enforcement, this would be considered "UTTERING DEADLY THREATS" which is very illiegal.

 

Last time I checked it was not illiegal to raise your voice, espically if you are on someones land illiegally or legal.

 

As to the topic at question here, if someone does own the bed and stream and they want no one on the land then like smitty said they should then post a custom made sign with all the right documentation on it and post it for all to see if they really want people off their land that badly.

[SupremeLeader]

I highlighted the part that interests me..I haven't fished many places in this province, other than the Bow, and that piddle creek I had mentioned, so fortunately for me, I've not encountered any trouble...that is of YET..but I'm sure it will come, and more than likely it will be on the Bow in the fall..if I'm still here that is. Now, if a gun is produced, you can take this to the bank...old or young that person will be charged with assault with a deadly weapon if it is pointed at me or my wolf, that is a given, because first off my wolf would instinctively want to protect me her Alpha partner, [just like any dog would for it's master], and second that person needs to have their head examined if they take the law into their own hands..

 

..for the rest of you post ..I agree life is to short , just leave but take care of business when they least expect it in the proper way..............................................Wolfie

 

Love the post Wolfie.

(thumbs up)

[Wolfie]

bhurt..strange how ppl can misconstrue something that was plainly said..

 

(Wolfie @ Jul 28 2009, 08:11 AM) *

..however..ignorant fools who mouth off, and try and play tough, usually wind up calming down and saying sorry to me, after they witness what my Wolf has to say to their loud voices...

..

 

..I guess I didn't make myself clear, although, I thought I had ..so for your benefit and any others, I'll try and spell it out for you.. first off my wolf comes with me wherever, she has been doing that ever since we lived on the island her home..anyways, her instincts are far more sensitive than canines, and will react to agression from anyone towards me, she will bare her teeth, snarl, and even bark in a manner most ppl have never heard, and if I gave the word she would attack, but don't worry, if you were there, I'm quite sure she would allow you to pat her, that is if fear hasn't got you sweating..

 

..

To me and I am sure to the police or any other law enforcement, this would be considered "UTTERING DEADLY THREATS" which is very illiegal.

 

..I've never made a threat towards anyone , however, I do warn ppl if they make any sudden moves towards me, my animal will respond, and besides, if you read my post slowly, you would realize that I had quoted the other chap's post because he had mentioned a gun, and I was supporting his post, with my comments.

 

..But I stand quite firm, with the words you quoted me on, her voice is enough to wake up the dead as well as leave ppl with a 'brown streak' up their back sides.......Wolfie

[gizmofisher]

 

 

After that incident, we got back to the car and called RCMP. They met us on hwy1 by the creek and explained what happened. Showed em sorta where this guy came from and a description. After a while they found him/his house and his story was that he was chasing coyotes off his property and thought he heard one by the creek. He came over to creek to find none, but two fisherpeople starting it up with him. BS.... RCMP officer says as long as he is on his property with a registered gun, hes okay. I mentioned the SITUATION again to the officer and he was getting mad at us. Officer then has the balls to tell us that the home owner could actually charge us for tresspasing. :$*%&: I explained the high water mark and it didnt matter to the officer, we were still technically trespassing as he stated. I then bluntly say thanks for your help to the officer, we will move on to another piece of water and hopefully not have my wife and i have another damn farmer waving guns at us for fishing cause were on their SACRED land. Definetly put a sour on our day and the RCMP.

Just as the above posts say, put some damn signs up or proof you own it. 1 million plus people right on your doorstep, iam positive it will happen again to another person at that location. I am all for protecting your land/property but when people go that far out of there way for a fisherman, its mind boggling.

[cdock]

After that incident, we got back to the car and called RCMP. They met us on hwy1 by the creek and explained what happened. Showed em sorta where this guy came from and a description. After a while they found him/his house and his story was that he was chasing coyotes off his property and thought he heard one by the creek. He came over to creek to find none, but two fisherpeople starting it up with him. BS.... RCMP officer says as long as he is on his property with a registered gun, hes okay. I mentioned the SITUATION again to the officer and he was getting mad at us. Officer then has the balls to tell us that the home owner could actually charge us for tresspasing. :$*%&: I explained the high water mark and it didnt matter to the officer, we were still technically trespassing as he stated. I then bluntly say thanks for your help to the officer, we will move on to another piece of water and hopefully not have my wife and i have another damn farmer waving guns at us for fishing cause were on their SACRED land. Definetly put a sour on our day and the RCMP.

Just as the above posts say, put some damn signs up or proof you own it. 1 million plus people right on your doorstep, iam positive it will happen again to another person at that location. I am all for protecting your land/property but when people go that far out of there way for a fisherman, its mind boggling.

 

Sounds like you had the same run in I had years ago although there were no guns. The response from the RCMP infuriates me. Making a point of feeling threatening by someone with a rifle (registered or not on his land or not using the gun for legitamate reasons or not) should be taken a little, no a LOT more seriously regardless of who started it.

[Harps]

Gizmo...

Send the Alberta Public Lands Act to the RCMP Supervisor (Cochrane) and a brief situation report. I'd mention that you felt threatened on site and did not feel that the situation was addressed properly, nor did the officer seem to understand the law. It is unlawfull to use deadly force to protect property in Canada and the waterways are public for the most part. If the law enforcement agencies don't know this....

 

 

 

Who hears coyotes and then goes to hunt them with a shotgun anyways??

[cdock]

Gizmo...

Send the Alberta Public Lands Act to the RCMP Supervisor (Cochrane) and a brief situation report. I'd mention that you felt threatened on site and did not feel that the situation was addressed properly, nor did the officer seem to understand the law. It is unlawfull to use deadly force to protect property in Canada and the waterways are public for the most part. If the law enforcement agencies don't know this....

 

 

 

Who hears coyotes and then goes to hunt them with a shotgun anyways??

 

Thanks Harps. I was just thinking what the heck does one do when the people you report do don't care? I suppose everyone has a boss, you just have to figure out who it is. Mine is my wife.

[Wolfie]

gizmofisher..sad to hear that coming from the RCMPs..however..if that happened to me, i would have got their shield numbers and pursued it farther, by writing a complaint to the district office, because whether you are on private property or not, that farmer had no business intimidating you and your lady with a firearm, no matter what excuse he told the officers.

 

..back in BC, my property was also posted every 50' with NO Trespassing/NO Hunting signs , i didn't have a creek running through it, so i didn't have problems with fishers, but ppl and their bloody dogs, that was a different matter all together.

 

..I know that certain sections of a great trout river was closed off by land owners to protect their cattle, but some of them built ladders over their fence to allow fishers to cross over, and this way the owners were assured that their fences stayed intact.................Wolfie

[fishnbugdude]

Was asking permission to hunt a property for turkey and had the land owner threaten me - saying he had a gun and if he saw me on his property again he would shoot me. I was fairly convinced that he would though he never showed me the gun. I am sure I left as wide eyed and surprised as his wife looked.

 

Took the notes - time, date, description and handed it to the police. They gave him a visit and did a formal report - asked if I wanted to press charges - I said no. This rattled me enough to not knock on doors for a couple of weeks. Must say the police treated me better than your RCMP.

 

I really do not like conflict - things like that ruin not only my day but normally take me a while to shake.

 

Could not imagine having a gun actually there - crazy.

[AndyW]

Was asking permission to hunt a property for turkey and had the land owner threaten me - saying he had a gun and if he saw me on his property again he would shoot me. I was fairly convinced that he would though he never showed me the gun. I am sure I left as wide eyed and surprised as his wife looked.

 

Took the notes - time, date, description and handed it to the police. They gave him a visit and did a formal report - asked if I wanted to press charges - I said no. This rattled me enough to not knock on doors for a couple of weeks. Must say the police treated me better than your RCMP.

 

I really do not like conflict - things like that ruin not only my day but normally take me a while to shake.

 

Could not imagine having a gun actually there - crazy.

 

 

SW Alberta has a disproportinate ammount of crazy ass landowners. Lots of them think that the land down there was gods gift to THEM. In the above case charges should have definately been laid!

 

 

[Taco]

SW Alberta has a disproportinate ammount of crazy ass landowners. Lots of them think that the land down there was gods gift to THEM. In the above case charges should have definately been laid!

 

A landowner is a landowner and he controls pretty much who can access his land even grazing lease. The vast majority of farmers and ranchers will let fishermen access the waterways if asked politely. The wannabes with the trophy ranches, trophy houses and trophy wives different story. Show up with an attitude like you're packin' and you're liable to end up with a very irritated redneck and restricted access for the rest of us to some very prime fishin'. You on the other hand may just end up with a sore set of nuts.

 

[bigbowtrout]

Here is some more info and I am working on finding all of those in Alberta that has the stream bed rights.

 

http://www.edmonton.ca/environmental/docum..._and_Shores.pdf

[iamfrontosa]

Just a thought, if the section of the watercourse was a result of land corrosion (oxbow is one example) or man-made watercourse diversion (dam), these sections of water would not comform to the riparian laws, therefore we would actually be walking on the landowners' land.

[Harps]

The gov't buys the landowners out at most gov't constructed damns. For example, you'll see on county maps that the Oldman Reservoir has Provincial Recreational land and crown lease land aroung the outskirts.

[GeekMedic]

I won't comment on fishing rights as I have no knowledge of the laws pertaining to those, but I will comment on a few things I've seen in this thread

1. Landowner or agent of the land owner has the right to use as much force as necessary to prevent an act of trespass to their property or evict a trespasser from their property (note that use of force applies here the same as it does under the criminal code.)

2. if the guy has a gun he's in charge, don't argue, or let your dog do the 'talking' for you, you'll be carrying your dog out. and that would be justified. Just leave and call local LEO.

3. If RCMP or any LEO ignores your compliant. Get as much info about the land owner as you can, make out an affidavit of the incident, and file charges with a JP, this will force an investigation, but is not a guarantee of prosecution.

[Wolfie]

GeekMedic..

 

..

1. Landowner or agent of the land owner has the right to use as much force as necessary to prevent an act of trespass to their property or evict a trespasser from their property (note that use of force applies here the same as it does under the criminal code.)

 

..I disagree to this statement..considering that I'm a resident manager for a 'landowner', and have run into this problem several times, it was stated to me under no certain terms that I [as the rep for the landowner] can NOT use any force, unless it is only verbal to evict any and all trespassers off said property..I must call the police/or RCMP, whichever, and let them sort things out..by LAW!

 

..

or let your dog do the 'talking' for you, you'll be carrying your dog out. and that would be justified.

 

..I have no idea who you are but by this statement you have posted indicates this to me as a threat..trust me on what I'm about to say..if by chance this does occur, [which I personally hope it doesn't for the person who pulls the trigger], that person will be charged and both a jail sentence and a heavy fine will be levied down by the courts..in this province or any other in Canada, simply because if a person has a dog, per say, with them and attacks a person who threatens their master, it is called self defense, and the person holding the gun is at fault..however , in my case, the federal law implies , which is indeed a stronger set of laws..

 

..

3. If RCMP or any LEO ignores your compliant. Get as much info about the land owner as you can, make out an affidavit of the incident, and file charges with a JP, this will force an investigation, but is not a guarantee of prosecution.

 

..are you not forgetting some of the major parts to ur post?...sure getting info on the landowner is just one thing, the badge numbers, names of the officers, time , date, location , witnesses if any, then after writing out a statement , you can then have it notarized, send a copy to the district office where the RCMP are stationed, then lodge a complaint with a JP , to proceed this matter before a court..

 

..as I personally know, that Each Province has their own way of following the ways that a Federal Law is to be delivered..and in this province which happens to be the worse, one should hang ur head down, turn around with ur tail between ur legs and walk away......................Wolfie

[Weedy1]

As far as I can figure the use of reasonable force is justified in order to remove a trespasser. Make what you want of this:

 

From the Criminal Code of Canada:

 

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-...a:s_3_1-gb:s_38

 

Defence of house or real property

 

41. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using force to prevent any person from trespassing on the dwelling-house or real property, or to remove a trespasser therefrom, if he uses no more force than is necessary.

 

Assault by trespasser

 

(2) A trespasser who resists an attempt by a person who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property, or a person lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority to prevent his entry or to remove him, shall be deemed to commit an assault without justification or provocation.

 

R.S., c. C-34, s. 41.

 

Assertion of right to house or real property

 

42. (1) Every one is justified in peaceably entering a dwelling-house or real property by day to take possession of it if he, or a person under whose authority he acts, is lawfully entitled to possession of it.

 

Assault in case of lawful entry

 

(2) Where a person

 

(a) not having peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right, or

 

(b ) not acting under the authority of a person who has peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right,

 

assaults a person who is lawfully entitled to possession of it and who is entering it peaceably by day to take possession of it, for the purpose of preventing him from entering, the assault shall be deemed to be without justification or provocation.

 

Trespasser provoking assault

 

(3) Where a person

 

(a) having peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right, or

 

(b ) acting under the authority of a person who has peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right,

 

assaults any person who is lawfully entitled to possession of it and who is entering it peaceably by day to take possession of it, for the purpose of preventing him from entering, the assault shall be deemed to be provoked by the person who is entering.

 

R.S., c. C-34, s. 42.

 

 

AND for anyone wondering how this would apply to access to leased crown land in Alberta:

 

From: http://www.justice.gov.ab.ca/criminal_pros...lt.aspx?id=5676

 

TRESPASS ON LEASED GRAZING LAND

 

DATE: May 20, 2008

 

SUBJECT: GUIDELINE GOVERNING THE PROSECUTION OF THOSE WHO ENTER UPON LEASED GRAZING LAND

BACKGROUND:

 

Crown prosecutors are sometimes required to consider whether to commence or continue a prosecution of an individual who is alleged to have entered Crown land that has been subject to an agricultural disposition pursuant to the Public Lands Act, RSA 2000, c. P-40 (e.g., a lease by the Crown for the purpose of allowing the lessee to graze livestock).

 

The following principles govern the consideration and conduct of any such prosecution.

GUIDELINE:

 

1. There is authority for the proposition that, at common law, a lessee of Crown land may prohibit access to the leased land and may hold a trespasser civilly liable in tort.

2. Pursuant to ss. 1, 2, 2.1 and 3 of the Petty Trespass Act, RSA 2000, c. P-11, those who enter Crown land that is subject to a disposition pursuant to the Public Lands Act may be prosecuted for trespass under that Act.

3. However, pursuant to s. 1.1 of the Petty Trespass Act those who enter such lands for a recreational purpose, as detailed in the Recreational Access Regulation, AR 228/2004, are exempt from prosecution for trespass under the Act.

4. As such, any prosecution arising from a recreational user’s entry upon such lands may only be conducted pursuant to the Criminal Code of Canada. While the charging section(s) would depend upon the conduct alleged, the following sections are most commonly applicable.

1. Section 430(1)©

 

Section 430(1)© is engaged if it is alleged that the purported recreation user wilfully obstructed, interrupted or interfered with the lessee’s lawful use, enjoyment or operation of the Crown-leased land. As such, to support a prosecution under this subsection, there would have to be sufficient evidence that the person interfered with the lessee’s purpose in using the land (i.e., grazing livestock).

 

2. Sections 266, 267 or 268

 

Pursuant to s. 41(1), a lessee is entitled to use as much force as is necessary to evict a trespasser from the land. By virtue of s. 41(2), a trespasser who resists being removed may be prosecuted for assault or related conduct. Such resistance would not include passive resistance, but would include resistance by violence (e.g., by striking back).

 

 

AND the Trespass to Premises Act Alberta

 

From: http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/laws/stat/rsa-...2000-c-t-7.html

 

TRESPASS TO PREMISES ACT

 

Chapter T‑7

 

Table of Contents

 

1 Definitions

 

2 Trespass

 

3 Offences and penalties

 

4 Liability of driver

 

5 Arrest without warrant

 

7 Jurisdiction of judge

 

8 Exception

 

9 Other enactments

 

HER MAJESTY, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, enacts as follows:

 

Definitions

 

1 In this Act,

 

(a) “authorized representative of the owner” means a person authorized by the owner to give notice not to trespass;

 

(B ) “owner” means the owner of premises and includes the following:

 

(i) the occupier of the premises;

 

(ii) the person who is in possession or control of the premises;

 

© “premises” means

 

(i) any building or structure or any part or portion of a building or structure, including any land used in connection with that building or structure for the purposes of

 

(A) providing parking for vehicles,

 

(B ) displaying or storing vehicles, equipment or other chattels,

 

© enhancing the appearance or use of the building or structure, or

 

(D) carrying out activities that are ancillary to the activities carried out in or on that building or structure,

 

and

 

(ii) any other land not referred to in subclause (i) if that other land

 

(A) is land to which the Petty Trespass Act does not apply, or

 

(B ) is land that is not subject to a specific exception provided for in section 1.1 of the Petty Trespass Act;

 

(d) “signs” includes posters and signboards;

 

(e) “trespass” means a trespass committed under this Act;

 

(f) “trespasser” means a person who commits a trespass under this Act.

 

RSA 2000 cT‑7 s1;2003 c41 s3

 

Trespass

 

2(1) No person shall trespass on premises with respect to which that person has had notice not to trespass.

 

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), notice not to trespass may be given to a person

 

(a) orally or in writing by the owner or an authorized representative of the owner, or

 

(B ) by signs visibly displayed

 

(i) at each of the entrances normally used by persons to enter the premises, and

 

(ii) in the case of premises referred to in section 1©(ii), at all fence corners or, if there is no fence, at each corner of the premises.

 

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), a person is deemed to have had notice not to trespass when signs are displayed in accordance with subsection (2)(B ).

 

1997 cT‑8.5 s2

 

Offences and penalties

 

3 A trespasser, whether or not any damage is caused by the trespass, is guilty of an offence and liable

 

(a) for a first offence, to a fine not exceeding $2000, and

 

(B ) for a 2nd or subsequent offence in relation to the same premises, to a fine not exceeding $5000.

 

RSA 2000 cT‑7 s3;2003 c41 s3

 

Liability of driver

 

4 When a trespass is committed by means of a motor vehicle, the driver of the vehicle is guilty of the contravention of this Act and liable to the fine.

 

1997 cT‑8.5 s4

 

Arrest without warrant

 

5(1) A trespasser may be apprehended without warrant by

 

(a) any peace officer, or

 

(B ) the owner or an authorized representative of the owner of the premises in respect of which the trespass is committed.

 

(2) Where a person other than a peace officer apprehends a trespasser, that person shall deliver that trespasser to a peace officer as soon as practicable.

 

1997 cT‑8.5 s5

 

 

 

6 Repealed 2003 c41 s3.

 

Jurisdiction of judge

 

7(1) Nothing in this Act authorizes the Provincial Court to hear and determine a case of trespass in which the title to premises, or to any interest in the premises, is called in question or affected.

 

(2) A case that deals with the issues referred to in subsection (1) respecting the title to premises, or to any interest in the premises, shall be dealt with according to law in the same manner as if this Act had not been enacted.

 

1997 cT‑8.5 s7

 

Exception

 

8 Nothing in this Act extends to a case where the trespasser acted under a fair and reasonable supposition that the trespasser had a right to do the act complained of.

 

1997 cT‑8.5 s8

 

Other enactments

 

9 This Act does not affect any other enactment relating to trespass.

 

1997 cT‑8.5 s9

 

 

 

[GeekMedic]

GeekMedic..

 

..

 

..I disagree to this statement..considering that I'm a resident manager for a 'landowner', and have run into this problem several times, it was stated to me under no certain terms that I [as the rep for the landowner] can NOT use any force, unless it is only verbal to evict any and all trespassers off said property..I must call the police/or RCMP, whichever, and let them sort things out..by LAW!

 

..

 

..I have no idea who you are but by this statement you have posted indicates this to me as a threat..trust me on what I'm about to say..if by chance this does occur, [which I personally hope it doesn't for the person who pulls the trigger], that person will be charged and both a jail sentence and a heavy fine will be levied down by the courts..in this province or any other in Canada, simply because if a person has a dog, per say, with them and attacks a person who threatens their master, it is called self defense, and the person holding the gun is at fault..however , in my case, the federal law implies , which is indeed a stronger set of laws..

 

..

 

..are you not forgetting some of the major parts to ur post?...sure getting info on the landowner is just one thing, the badge numbers, names of the officers, time , date, location , witnesses if any, then after writing out a statement , you can then have it notarized, send a copy to the district office where the RCMP are stationed, then lodge a complaint with a JP , to proceed this matter before a court..

 

..as I personally know, that Each Province has their own way of following the ways that a Federal Law is to be delivered..and in this province which happens to be the worse, one should hang ur head down, turn around with ur tail between ur legs and walk away......................Wolfie

 

I don't want this to be a pissing contest, my statements are based on experience.

 

1. Unless it is a tenant, you can remove ANYONE from the property using REASONABLE force, rules are the same as if it was your own home. If they refuse to leave, ban them for a period of time ( 6months, a year etc) and inform them that if they come back, they will be arrested for trespass. I have found this a very useful tool. If you do arrest someone then you MUST call local LEO for pick up. you do have to file with your local JP yourself as the TPA is a civil charge and not Criminal code. If it is a potentially violent person then call LEO and let them play with the trespasser.

 

2. I am a dog owner. Have had a stubborn meter reader learn the hard way that that the yard is the dogs turf. What I am trying to say is that you keep your dog at your side and not let your dog approach cranky landowner. the landowner could justify shooting the animal. If you are attacked by a landowner and your dog defends you that changes things (and I hope your dog will take a nice big chunk out of the twit). Unfortunately I believe companion animals are still considered property in this country, please correct me if that is incorrect.

 

3. This applies across the country when laws and statutes conflict: provincial overrules civic, federal overrules provincial.

 

4. Another tidbit for you, out in public a citizen can arrest for an indictable offense, on private property he is in control of he can arrest for any criminal code offense. Also useful for those really stubborn trespassers.

 

[GeekMedic]

As far as I can figure the use of reasonable force is justified in order to remove a trespasser. Make what you want of this:

 

From the Criminal Code of Canada:

 

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-...a:s_3_1-gb:s_38

 

Defence of house or real property

 

41. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using force to prevent any person from trespassing on the dwelling-house or real property, or to remove a trespasser therefrom, if he uses no more force than is necessary.

 

Assault by trespasser

 

(2) A trespasser who resists an attempt by a person who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property, or a person lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority to prevent his entry or to remove him, shall be deemed to commit an assault without justification or provocation.

 

R.S., c. C-34, s. 41.

 

Assertion of right to house or real property

 

42. (1) Every one is justified in peaceably entering a dwelling-house or real property by day to take possession of it if he, or a person under whose authority he acts, is lawfully entitled to possession of it.

 

Assault in case of lawful entry

 

(2) Where a person

 

(a) not having peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right, or

 

(b ) not acting under the authority of a person who has peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right,

 

assaults a person who is lawfully entitled to possession of it and who is entering it peaceably by day to take possession of it, for the purpose of preventing him from entering, the assault shall be deemed to be without justification or provocation.

 

Trespasser provoking assault

 

(3) Where a person

 

(a) having peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right, or

 

(b ) acting under the authority of a person who has peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right,

 

assaults any person who is lawfully entitled to possession of it and who is entering it peaceably by day to take possession of it, for the purpose of preventing him from entering, the assault shall be deemed to be provoked by the person who is entering.

 

R.S., c. C-34, s. 42.

 

 

AND for anyone wondering how this would apply to access to leased crown land in Alberta:

 

From: http://www.justice.gov.ab.ca/criminal_pros...lt.aspx?id=5676

 

TRESPASS ON LEASED GRAZING LAND

 

DATE: May 20, 2008

 

SUBJECT: GUIDELINE GOVERNING THE PROSECUTION OF THOSE WHO ENTER UPON LEASED GRAZING LAND

BACKGROUND:

 

Crown prosecutors are sometimes required to consider whether to commence or continue a prosecution of an individual who is alleged to have entered Crown land that has been subject to an agricultural disposition pursuant to the Public Lands Act, RSA 2000, c. P-40 (e.g., a lease by the Crown for the purpose of allowing the lessee to graze livestock).

 

The following principles govern the consideration and conduct of any such prosecution.

GUIDELINE:

 

1. There is authority for the proposition that, at common law, a lessee of Crown land may prohibit access to the leased land and may hold a trespasser civilly liable in tort.

2. Pursuant to ss. 1, 2, 2.1 and 3 of the Petty Trespass Act, RSA 2000, c. P-11, those who enter Crown land that is subject to a disposition pursuant to the Public Lands Act may be prosecuted for trespass under that Act.

3. However, pursuant to s. 1.1 of the Petty Trespass Act those who enter such lands for a recreational purpose, as detailed in the Recreational Access Regulation, AR 228/2004, are exempt from prosecution for trespass under the Act.

4. As such, any prosecution arising from a recreational user’s entry upon such lands may only be conducted pursuant to the Criminal Code of Canada. While the charging section(s) would depend upon the conduct alleged, the following sections are most commonly applicable.

1. Section 430(1)©

 

Section 430(1)© is engaged if it is alleged that the purported recreation user wilfully obstructed, interrupted or interfered with the lessee’s lawful use, enjoyment or operation of the Crown-leased land. As such, to support a prosecution under this subsection, there would have to be sufficient evidence that the person interfered with the lessee’s purpose in using the land (i.e., grazing livestock).

 

2. Sections 266, 267 or 268

 

Pursuant to s. 41(1), a lessee is entitled to use as much force as is necessary to evict a trespasser from the land. By virtue of s. 41(2), a trespasser who resists being removed may be prosecuted for assault or related conduct. Such resistance would not include passive resistance, but would include resistance by violence (e.g., by striking back).

 

 

AND the Trespass to Premises Act Alberta

 

From: http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/laws/stat/rsa-...2000-c-t-7.html

 

TRESPASS TO PREMISES ACT

 

Chapter T‑7

 

Table of Contents

 

1 Definitions

 

2 Trespass

 

3 Offences and penalties

 

4 Liability of driver

 

5 Arrest without warrant

 

7 Jurisdiction of judge

 

8 Exception

 

9 Other enactments

 

HER MAJESTY, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, enacts as follows:

 

Definitions

 

1 In this Act,

 

(a) “authorized representative of the owner” means a person authorized by the owner to give notice not to trespass;

 

(B ) “owner” means the owner of premises and includes the following:

 

(i) the occupier of the premises;

 

(ii) the person who is in possession or control of the premises;

 

© “premises” means

 

(i) any building or structure or any part or portion of a building or structure, including any land used in connection with that building or structure for the purposes of

 

(A) providing parking for vehicles,

 

(B ) displaying or storing vehicles, equipment or other chattels,

 

© enhancing the appearance or use of the building or structure, or

 

(D) carrying out activities that are ancillary to the activities carried out in or on that building or structure,

 

and

 

(ii) any other land not referred to in subclause (i) if that other land

 

(A) is land to which the Petty Trespass Act does not apply, or

 

(B ) is land that is not subject to a specific exception provided for in section 1.1 of the Petty Trespass Act;

 

(d) “signs” includes posters and signboards;

 

(e) “trespass” means a trespass committed under this Act;

 

(f) “trespasser” means a person who commits a trespass under this Act.

 

RSA 2000 cT‑7 s1;2003 c41 s3

 

Trespass

 

2(1) No person shall trespass on premises with respect to which that person has had notice not to trespass.

 

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), notice not to trespass may be given to a person

 

(a) orally or in writing by the owner or an authorized representative of the owner, or

 

(B ) by signs visibly displayed

 

(i) at each of the entrances normally used by persons to enter the premises, and

 

(ii) in the case of premises referred to in section 1©(ii), at all fence corners or, if there is no fence, at each corner of the premises.

 

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), a person is deemed to have had notice not to trespass when signs are displayed in accordance with subsection (2)(B ).

 

1997 cT‑8.5 s2

 

Offences and penalties

 

3 A trespasser, whether or not any damage is caused by the trespass, is guilty of an offence and liable

 

(a) for a first offence, to a fine not exceeding $2000, and

 

(B ) for a 2nd or subsequent offence in relation to the same premises, to a fine not exceeding $5000.

 

RSA 2000 cT‑7 s3;2003 c41 s3

 

Liability of driver

 

4 When a trespass is committed by means of a motor vehicle, the driver of the vehicle is guilty of the contravention of this Act and liable to the fine.

 

1997 cT‑8.5 s4

 

Arrest without warrant

 

5(1) A trespasser may be apprehended without warrant by

 

(a) any peace officer, or

 

(B ) the owner or an authorized representative of the owner of the premises in respect of which the trespass is committed.

 

(2) Where a person other than a peace officer apprehends a trespasser, that person shall deliver that trespasser to a peace officer as soon as practicable.

 

1997 cT‑8.5 s5

 

 

 

6 Repealed 2003 c41 s3.

 

Jurisdiction of judge

 

7(1) Nothing in this Act authorizes the Provincial Court to hear and determine a case of trespass in which the title to premises, or to any interest in the premises, is called in question or affected.

 

(2) A case that deals with the issues referred to in subsection (1) respecting the title to premises, or to any interest in the premises, shall be dealt with according to law in the same manner as if this Act had not been enacted.

 

1997 cT‑8.5 s7

 

Exception

 

8 Nothing in this Act extends to a case where the trespasser acted under a fair and reasonable supposition that the trespasser had a right to do the act complained of.

 

1997 cT‑8.5 s8

 

Other enactments

 

9 This Act does not affect any other enactment relating to trespass.

 

1997 cT‑8.5 s9

 

 

 

 

Perfect! I'm printing this and putting it with my fishing gear.

[mikefromsundre]

"A landowner is a landowner and he controls pretty much who can access his land even grazing lease."

 

...except any surveyor and any energy company that wants onto your land. They have the mineral rights most land owners do not.

[peacefulwarrior]

The way a law is interpreted and the way it is written are two different things. Alberta and Canada case law is full of landowners who faced criminal and civil claims after "protecting their land."

 

Check out the story below from just a couple months ago. The bad guys have obviously trespassed and probably tried to wither steal or damage property, but the landowner is the one who is really in the soup. I wouldn't take my chances with the Canadian Court system. Unless you are in imminent danger, call the cops and let them do the heavy lifting.

 

Farmer charged for chasing, shooting thief

Last Updated: Friday, March 27, 2009 | 5:10 PM MT Comments356Recommend117

CBC News

Police have charged an Alberta farmer who they say shot a suspected thief, then called friends and family to help hunt for the wounded man.

 

Brian Russell Knight, 38, who lives on a rural property in Tees, northeast of Red Deer, faces seven charges including assault, criminal negligence causing bodily harm and discharging a firearm, RCMP said on Friday.

 

"Don't take the law into your own hands," said Bashaw RCMP staff Sgt. Darrel Bruno. "Contact the police as soon as possible, because all you're doing to do is get yourself into trouble."

 

Knight, a farmer, was awoken by his wife early Thursday morning after she heard voices in the farmyard.

 

"Three males were observed outside of the residence," police said in a statement. "Two of the culprits jumped into [a] truck while the third culprit started a quad [all-terrain vehicle] that was just outside of the house. The truck and quad drove off."

 

Farmer calls friends, family to help

 

The farmer raced to his car and chased the man on the quad. Police say that about two kilometres from the house, the farmer rammed his car into the quad, and both vehicles wound up in the ditch.

 

The farmer pulled out a shotgun and fired two rounds at the fleeing man, who was struck, but kept on running, police allege.

 

 

 

 

[Weedy1]

The way a law is interpreted and the way it is written are two different things. Alberta and Canada case law is full of landowners who faced criminal and civil claims after "protecting their land."

 

Check out the story below from just a couple months ago. The bad guys have obviously trespassed and probably tried to wither steal or damage property, but the landowner is the one who is really in the soup. I wouldn't take my chances with the Canadian Court system. Unless you are in imminent danger, call the cops and let them do the heavy lifting.

 

Farmer charged for chasing, shooting thief

Last Updated: Friday, March 27, 2009 | 5:10 PM MT Comments356Recommend117

CBC News

Police have charged an Alberta farmer who they say shot a suspected thief, then called friends and family to help hunt for the wounded man.

 

Brian Russell Knight, 38, who lives on a rural property in Tees, northeast of Red Deer, faces seven charges including assault, criminal negligence causing bodily harm and discharging a firearm, RCMP said on Friday.

 

"Don't take the law into your own hands," said Bashaw RCMP staff Sgt. Darrel Bruno. "Contact the police as soon as possible, because all you're doing to do is get yourself into trouble."

 

Knight, a farmer, was awoken by his wife early Thursday morning after she heard voices in the farmyard.

 

"Three males were observed outside of the residence," police said in a statement. "Two of the culprits jumped into [a] truck while the third culprit started a quad [all-terrain vehicle] that was just outside of the house. The truck and quad drove off."

 

Farmer calls friends, family to help

 

The farmer raced to his car and chased the man on the quad. Police say that about two kilometres from the house, the farmer rammed his car into the quad, and both vehicles wound up in the ditch.

 

The farmer pulled out a shotgun and fired two rounds at the fleeing man, who was struck, but kept on running, police allege.

 

And for anyone who would like to add to his defense fund here is where to look.

 

http://www.brianknightlegalfund.com/

 

Long live the RedNecks!!!!!

 

 

(Disclaimer: I don't condone any of the actions in the above mentioned story but.....

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

Long live the RedNecks!!!!!

[dmcd]

Was it ever cleared up whether or not the Saras had bed rights? I know there was another post that got WAY out of hand on the subject. Just wondering as I'll be down in the area for 3 weeks if someone had found out with absolute certainty before the thread was deleted?

[jksnijders]

Just ask the 3 guys who figured it would be a good idea to steal gas from an Italian farmer north a ways of where I live, and the consequent beating all 3 received. From the single said Italian, who is in his mid-50's. Served them right in my opinion. My dad caught a guy stealing a 3 ton truck out of our yard, the idiot was dumb enough to pull into the truckstop up the highway after taking it. Ironically my dad and 2 of his friends had been on the river all day, just getting back to town at 2 am, saw the truck driving down the highway. Turned around, followed the guy into the station, where dad jerked the guy out of the cab and beat the hell out of him in the parking lot. All the while, his lawyer, (who happened to be one of the aforementioned friends) was heard saying "Don't hit him again.. Don't hit him again..." That still makes me laugh..

Again, the idiot deserved it.

 

This obviously deviates quite a bit from the original thread, but since the topic was brought up..