Thoughts on this reply from a leaseholder?

[MooseRiverTrapper]

What happened to “watch out for the cows”?

I would like to pay $1000 annually. That goes into a slush fund for grazing lease holders to do what they see fit with. In return I get year round foot access only all across AB.

[MooseRiverTrapper]

Originally Posted by marky_mark

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is drivel from a guy that is not in charge thankfully. And I like Brian, lost a lot of respect for him there.

[PartTimeHunter]

Originally Posted by marky_mark

Not even close
Your proving that you can be trusted to ensure that wishes of the lease/land owner are followed.
That’s like saying that if you offered a land owner a couple of ducks after a hunt that it would be a problem??

Remember, that the prime minister fired the solicitor general. Because she wouldn’t drop the criminal bribery charges against one of his largest financial supporters. And there was nothing ethically or legally wrong with his actions

Yes but, remember when dealing with our superiors there is the old adage - rules for thee but not for me. This covers dear leaders' approach to life

[FortMac]

Originally Posted by marky_mark

That’s why they sign up for clas
Which is an acceptable solution to the problem

Allowing foot access only with no Contact requires is an Aceeptable solution to the problem as well. They know they need to get their cows off come fall and they won't be bombarded with calls. Sounds pretty simple.

[Positrac]

Originally Posted by FortMac

Allowing foot access only with no Contact requires is an Aceeptable solution to the problem as well. They know they need to get their cows off come fall and they won't be bombarded with calls. Sounds pretty simple.

Is there anywhere that states they have to get their cows off come fall?

[FortMac]

Originally Posted by Positrac

Is there anywhere that states they have to get their cows off come fall?

Nope, there is no requirement. However if they find it a huge inconvenience to be getting phone calls come hunting season, why not help them out? Lots of lease holders have a "no restrictions don't call me" on their access conditions. Their fall is probably pretty quiet

[Positrac]

Originally Posted by FortMac

Nope, there is no requirement. However if they find it a huge inconvenience to be getting phone calls come hunting season, why not help them out? Lots of lease holders have a "no restrictions don't call me" on their access conditions. Their fall is probably pretty quiet

I agree no restrictions would be great but if it’s a good fall and a guy can keep his cows out a bit longer I could see why he wouldn’t want a bunch of people hunting his lease. Is the access requirements DK posted up in his OP too much to ask?

[DiabeticKripple]

Originally Posted by marky_mark

That’s why they sign up for clas
Which is an acceptable solution to the problem

Why should I pay a third party money to access public land, when I should be able to do it for free.

Someone is making money off of it, and I'm not okay with that either.

I understand the concept, but the government should be providing this service for free. If leaseholders dont want to deal with the influx of calls during hunting season, then they need to make it no contact.

[Positrac]

I can see both sides of the argument.

If it cost me $10/year to go through clas to get access and it made it easier for the rancher leasing the land to manage that access then I don’t really have an issue with it.

I’m in no way for paid access but I don’t really see this as being paid access either. But who know, maybe I’m part of the problem because if I wanted to get access to a specific piece of land I’d have no issue putting a bit of time into forming a relationship with that rancher and if he needed a bit of help that I could provide I’d have no issue doing that either. Not monetarily but a bit of time helping out when needed is all part of forming a relationship.

[DiabeticKripple]

Originally Posted by Positrac

I can see both sides of the argument.

If it cost me $10/year to go through clas to get access and it made it easier for the rancher leasing the land to manage that access then I don’t really have an issue with it.

I’m in no way for paid access but I don’t really see this as being paid access either. But who know, maybe I’m part of the problem because if I wanted to get access to a specific piece of land I’d have no issue putting a bit of time into forming a relationship with that rancher and if he needed a bit of help that I could provide I’d have no issue doing that either. Not monetarily but a bit of time helping out when needed is all part of forming a relationship.

Exactly. I have no problem helping a guy out if he needs it. But it shouldnt be expected either.


For what its worth, I just spoke with a Fish and Wildlife officer about a different matter, and at the end of the call I asked about CLAS and this specific response I got from the rancher. The officer said that CLAS should not be involved whatsoever with lease lands and to bring this issue up with the local AEP office. He said CLAS was never supposed to dip their hands in lease land, only private land. Not much he can do about it from his side as it is the AEP department, but it is an issue.

[roper1]

The lease issue is emotional.

When you lease a home from anyone(gov't included) the tenant controls access.

Seems simple to me.


PLEASE KEEP THE DIALOGUE RESPECTFUL!! THANKS

[KC1]

Originally Posted by FortMac

You let him know when you were going to be there and he acknowledged your email. Go ahead and hunt.

Absolutely disagree
Poaching is not hunting
Ask first
Use respect

[DiabeticKripple]

Originally Posted by roper1

The lease issue is emotional.

When you lease a home from anyone(gov't included) the tenant controls access.

Seems simple to me.


PLEASE KEEP THE DIALOGUE RESPECTFUL!! THANKS

I have no issue with a tenant controlling access as per the guidelines set out by the government. I was denied access on almost every lease I contacted due to the fire ban or cattle in the lease, which is perfectly fine.

However, I have an issue with having to pay a fee, no matter the cost, to a third party company to access public lease land, or else be denied access.

I have sent my email to the local agrologist and will post the reply once I receive one.

[FortMac]

Originally Posted by KC1

Absolutely disagree
Poaching is not hunting
Ask first
Use respect

Holding a valid license, and harvesting an animal, on crown land, during a Lawful season is not poaching.

[ctd]

For grazing lease access if I have trouble contacting the lease holder I will contact the area manager and or office.
Some leases have rules for cows to be off lease by Nov 1st or so. All it takes is a few phone calls to the right people and things Happen.

It sucks that some of the lease holders follow the rules loosely and or skirt around them, for many they feel they own the land and such can control it outright. They have an agreement to allow reasonable access to the lease land. If they do not hold up their end, complaints need to be made and alternative contact methods made.
If they do not like it then they can read the rules they agreed to and choose to follow them or find a new lease some where else.

[Deer_Hunter]

We clearly need a legislative fix for this mess

I do not agree with allowing lese holders to control access like it is private land

You put your cows on private land and you must assume some risk

I would send this to the settlement officer

While I was not a supporter of the NDP, the UCP winning next round is far from a sure thing - I hope we get something out of a change of government should it occur and and legislative fix for this would be welcome

Right to roam Alberta to all public lands

[Phil McCracken]

Our little group has hunted a particular lease for longer than a decade. We also have permission slips from many private lands are camp. We always maintained proactive contact/conversation with the lease holder, and farmers, and never had any issues with him.

The lease holder is a great guy, and whenever he tells us to stay away from a certain area (ie. because his cows are still around), well you guessed it...we stay away from there. But I have seen the odd idiot in those areas before.

One year I walked in to one of my preferred spot in the lease. We had fresh snow the night before, so I left my footprints behind me. I was the only one in there. About an hour later, some idiots in a truck drove over to where I was standing, on top of my footprints. Had a short conversation with them, and of course they did not know the name of the lease holder, nor the foot only access. I also had a not so friendly conversation about them impeding my hunt. He played stupid and said he never saw my fresh footprints in the snow. BS! While talking to him, his truck was parked on top of them.

Long story short, they simply decided to drive in there, and ignored the fact that somebody else was in there. When I left, I walked to the gate they went in and you guessed it, it was left opened, so I closed it.

That is the main problem in my opinion. Wannabe hunters that think they can do anything they want. We all seen that.

I understand why some lease holders are getting upset. If all respected the rules, I bet things would be better. Again, "Respect".

I could be wrong...

[DEAD ON]

Its is not the authority of a lease holder to impose restriction on land owned by the province and its people. Imposing "fees" for access is ridiculous. If lease holder don't like the phone calls or people on the land don't lease it plain and simple. It the same as any job farming comes with some bull**** you don't have to like it. Putting 100k into a property you don't own isn't an excuse. I wouldn't reno a house i didn't own but that's just me.

[leo]

As many have mentioned already. Hunters need to be responsible and respectful regardless of their personal feelings on Grazing Lease access. Yes it is public land, no you do not have the right to go on it without permission. Bear in mind, lease holders pay for the fencing, grazing improvements, water improvements on these tracts of land. These investments come out of their pockets, and they have the right to dictate certain term to protect these investments. If you want to hunt these lands, go through the proper channels to do so. I can tell you right now, that the chances of the crown siding with recreational users over the cattle industry is slim to none. If changes are ever made at the legislative level, it will be likely to exclude more access.
On another note, my in-laws were in cattle for 50+ years. The hunting was pretty dismal on any pastured land compared to other tracts that weren’t grazed. The population of wild critters drops exponentially where livestock has grazed. There are critters there, but not in the same numbers as elsewhere on the farm. Saying that, I’ve never hunted a grazing tract unless it was next to ungrazed lands. Wildlife still need feed, especially when the weather gets cold. They may bed on the grazing area, but you don’t see high numbers of animals on there because it won’t sustain them. IMO, your better hunting opportunities lie elsewhere.

[marky_mark]

Originally Posted by DiabeticKripple

Why should I pay a third party money to access public land, when I should be able to do it for free.

Someone is making money off of it, and I'm not okay with that either.

I understand the concept, but the government should be providing this service for free. If leaseholders dont want to deal with the influx of calls during hunting season, then they need to make it no contact.

You obviously dont deal with the govt often
Nothing they do is easy, free or on time

easy solution is for you to Come up with a better app and let everyone use it for free

[freeride]

Its easy to just say something isnt fair or you dont like it.

I will admit the CLAS system doesnt sit well with me, it feels an awful lot like pay to play now. With that being said I thought about it and what it would be like on the lease land holder and all the phone calls and emails and how that system would make it much easier for them.

Basically I dont like it, but I havent come up with a better solution for BOTH sides either...

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by DiabeticKripple

What do you think of this reply I got from a lease holder when I sent an email asking for permission to hunt the lease.



I bolded the part that threw me off. Basically he saying use CLAS or pizz off. This is the way that lease holders are going to deny access to public lands during the season.

This makes me want to send a snarky reply back or go to the agrologist for the area and ask for clarification on how this leaseholder is allowed to force people to sign up and pay for a third party system to access public land.

All the other lease holders I contacted were super friendly and some granted me access.

Contact the land manager.

[trapperdodge]

When Ted Morton was the Minister he tried to get a system in place much like the Block plan in Montana. It was a step in the right direction. A solution to access. "Paid hunting" was the cry from Alberta hunters. Nothing got done.

I've hunted extensively in NM. A lease there gives you the right to the grass. You cannot stop anyone from accessing the land. The ranchers live with it.

[cacty]

Originally Posted by Sledhead71

Sorry but your reply is not correct. There may be cattle, fire restrictions or other conditions which may prevent access...

Being a lease holder this time of the year is not a fun job.

Agreed man, not a fun job but they accepted the responsibility when they signed up to use the land for (basically free) for 99 years for basically just paying a few hundred dollars/yr/quarter. It is public land and we all have the right to enjoy it.

Just as an FYI, my family has 1000's of acres of leased land, which I do not hunt on.

[Foysey22]

Chances are, all the people bitching have never farmed a day in their life, have never had their fence cut, never played "find the black cow in the dark". At the end of the day it's the idiots that ruin it for all of us. Sure leases aren't ours but we sure as hell pick up everyone's trash and fix the mud holes, put out the fires and mend the fences for the hope that the next guy who wants to hunt respects it. It's a sad sight for me as both a rancher/farmer and a die hard whitetail guy. Today's society is very entitled for sure and all we ask for is a little respect. This guy clearly has had some bad experiences and just wants an easier way to track and keep an eye on the land he maintains. I guess those whose back yard isn't more than a acre wouldn't know.

[Bushrat]

Originally Posted by Foysey22

Chances are, all the people bitching have never farmed a day in their life, have never had their fence cut, never played "find the black cow in the dark". At the end of the day it's the idiots that ruin it for all of us. Sure leases aren't ours but we sure as hell pick up everyone's trash and fix the mud holes, put out the fires and mend the fences for the hope that the next guy who wants to hunt respects it. It's a sad sight for me as both a rancher/farmer and a die hard whitetail guy. Today's society is very entitled for sure and all we ask for is a little respect. This guy clearly has had some bad experiences and just wants an easier way to track and keep an eye on the land he maintains. I guess those whose back yard isn't more than a acre wouldn't know.

True, majority respect private and lease lands, on the other hand regardless of whether you allow hunting or not it won't stop the idiots who cut fences, drive thru standing crops, leave gates open and chuck out their garbage, you know the same entitled idiots who also wreck crown land, shoot up oilfield lease signs and buildings, leave their garbage and drive through creeks, they don't care who owns or doesn't own the land, they go where they want, do what they want whether it's private, leased or crown, doesn't matter to them.

In fact when these jackwads see a no trespassing no hunting sign they are inspired to make their presence known by being more destructive than normal.

[walking buffalo]

As is it currently modelled, CLAS is running a scheme that meets the criteria for Paid recreational access.

Simple solution, have the Leaseholders pay for CLAS to manage their access responsibilities.

[calgarychef]

Originally Posted by Deer_Hunter

We clearly need a legislative fix for this mess

I do not agree with allowing lese holders to control access like it is private land

You put your cows on private land and you must assume some risk

I would send this to the settlement officer

While I was not a supporter of the NDP, the UCP winning next round is far from a sure thing - I hope we get something out of a change of government should it occur and and legislative fix for this would be welcome

Right to roam Alberta to all public lands

Yes we do need a legislative fix.

The government should be hand,7th access to crown leased lands beyond the grass that they sell for the cattle. There’s no reason the leases couldn’t be treated like WMU’s cipurrentoy are. They ought to charge a small fee for access every time $5.00/$10.00 something like that. You go online request an access date and pay your fee, then go access the land for berry/mushroom picking foraging, hiking etc.

Problem would be solved by taking it our of the hands of the grazing lease owners.

[FortMac]

Originally Posted by calgarychef

Yes we do need a legislative fix.

The government should be hand,7th access to crown leased lands beyond the grass that they sell for the cattle. There’s no reason the leases couldn’t be treated like WMU’s cipurrentoy are. They ought to charge a small fee for access every time $5.00/$10.00 something like that. You go online request an access date and pay your fee, then go access the land for berry/mushroom picking foraging, hiking etc.

Problem would be solved by taking it our of the hands of the grazing lease owners.

You want to charge money on a per visit schedule for Public land? So if I want to have access to 3 or 4 leases a day I'd pay $20??

[DiabeticKripple]

Originally Posted by mr.orange

He's not forcing you to sign up for a third-party system of contact, he's putting up a roadblock ie. playing games.

You contacted him through the information system already provided by the Alberta government - you tried to 'show respect' by doing so. He didn't respond directly to your request but it is now trying to deter you, by suggesting you try an alternate mode of contact. Send a follow up request the same as the first. If you get the same gamesmanship, go on your hunt. But keep a log book, and records of attempted contact. Be prepared for a conversation with a CO.

Or Option 2... I've never been denied access to leased land because I've already got access permission to their private land. That access was granted because I bought a land owner map. I figured out where they lived. I knocked on their door and had a face-to-face conversation. My truck was clean, and I didn't wear camo when saying hello for the first time. I didn't show up during their busy times, when they're likely stressed. I send xmas cards thanking people for permission. If I get something on their private or leased land, I come back with a gift (usually a bottle of wine and some meatballs and sausages that I make up in the off-season).

But it all starts with a face-to-face conversation, which goes wildly different than a random cold phone call, or email. And most times, you make friends.

So yeah, you've done the bare minimum legally required, but up your game a little bit and you'll find that you won't have to deal with crap like this from leaseholders.

Why should I have to up my game? I contacted the lease holder, he should just say yes or no based on the criteria put out by the govt, that 95% of leaseholders in the province adhere to.

Based on his reply, do you think Ill get anywhere by sending him another email? He will just ignore it.

Additionally, due to the large volume of hunters, only those who are approved will be contacted. If no contact has been made, then assume we are full, or cattle are on the lease, or there is a fire ban.

So if he doesnt reply to any emails or phone calls, us hunters are just supposed to assume hes got cattle or is full? He can just not reply to anyone and keep people off the lease.