Accessing grazing leases and settling disputes

[catnthehat]

FWIW I have asked exactly four times in the past for permission to access leases down south , and was granted permission every time.

I have also seen instances where locals trespassed , poached, and destroyed property in the areas they lived in, so it is not simply a case of outsiders versus ranchers.
Cat

[nekred]

Originally Posted by OpenRange

Attitudes like mine? That's rich, there was quite a bunch of posts before mine all saying if you don't get what you want just go around the leaseholder and get what you want. One comment to the contrary and I'M the entitled leaseholder that needs his leases pulled. Couldn't possibly be the entitled hunter thinking he personally owns every people of Crown Land in the entire province. There has been more then enough posts on this forum about people using lease land for unregulated shooting ranges and off road vehicle sites. Pretty much all the comments end up saying " it's sad they went in there and made such a mess and ruined the area", but yeah, you want it ALL returned to the province and these imbeciles to ruin with no one there to monitor it. You all are quick to complain about this destruction but your not fixing the ruts and picking up all the blown up and destroyed garbage left lying around. That's the leaseholders responsibility I guess, once it's not pristine anymore and the you know what hits the fan all the hunters, shooters and off roaders walk away and go somewhere else leaving others to clean up the mess left in their wake. Public lands is getting tired of all these ridiculous complaint from hunters, it doesn't help getting on, it hinders it. If you got game cams on an adjacent field to some lease you wanna hunt and keep seeing s massive trophy go in there and you want him, that's one thing. Squeaky wheels name drop that they have premission from this neighbour and that neighbour, if they get denied access to one parcel they complain to Public Lands, knowing FULL well that they just want the option to MAYBE go in there. They might get their deer or whatever elsewhere and never even set foot on that disputed parcel to begin with. But now you've complained to Public Lands and they have gone through the hoops to get you access, which you didn't use, and they become a little more deaf to your pleas. Point being, when it's truly worth getting in that lease then you do what you gotta do, I can't fault a guy for wanting that. If your doing it just to add another 10,000 acres of permission to the 30,000 you already have and prove a point, why bother? It hurts your ability to access when it really counts. Sorry it's such a brash comment I made but it's the truth. For every 1 good hunter there is 10 others that would destroy those lease acres and not think twice about it. Public Lands are protecting the land from the 10 people, not the one hunter, but sometimes hunters get caught in the net as well.

Wow quite the vitriolic response.... lets look historically at all the land in ALberta,

What rights preceded agriculture/range use?Hunting trapping, berry picking etc.

What keeps the land more pristine and "natural" grazing, and agriculture, or hunting, berry picking, trapping etc.

Be careful what you say and look at the facts. In fact folks lets look at a scenario, if a First nations group exercised their historical right enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and accessed this land say from Sept 1st to Nov 30th and set up a "traditional" hunting camp whether livestock is present or not, with it being PUBLIC land lessees would have ZERO rights because the Charter supersedes any and all Provincial Regulations.

That all being said my own policy is to always be on good terms with landowners and leaseholders and ask for permission always and if not granted then I will move on because I don't want to make a hassle, but if drawn into one then I am bringing an RPG to a fistfight....

[nekred]

In fact to go one step further,

If a First nations group said that in their oral history they used to use "the land of waving grasses in view of a mountain shaped like a sleeping bear to hunt wapiti during the moon of changing leaves, and moon of no leaves and moon of first snow" and that happened to be a description that could match your leased land....

Guess what....

Oral historical records of a First nation people could be determined that this lease was traditional hunting grounds for Sept-Nov... then you would lose right of access, and furthermore if the FN group said that other activities throughout the year affected their traditional way of life and reduced their hunting success.... the Lessee would be SOL, and so would everyone else that was not FN.

How do you argue with oral historical records?... you can't

If you think this is not so, well... in history there are public areas that have been closed to any access to non FN people because of being declared as being religiously significant to FN people.

[trophybook]

DiamondK why don't you go buy some land to hunt on then? We own over 1000 acres. And for some of our grazing leases cost us 18000$ so put your money down.

[smith88]

Originally Posted by shootermcgavin

Hello all,

Trying to line up some new hunting spots this fall and running in to the same old b.s. in regards to accessing grazing leases... it says under the conditions that i can contact the local settlement officer or director to help settle disputes.

I have not been able to find any contact for the called settlement officer and thought I would reach out to a.o for help.

Has anybody here had experience with local settlements officers or directors and how did that go?

I feel that blatantly being told that " you might be able go on after I get my elk" and " you can hike buy not hunt" isn't really a fair response to my proposal to access grazing leases. And would like to find a fair way to access OUR land. One person even told me that there is" too much liability involved let me on"... will if that is true then maybe you shouldn't be leasing the land anymore...

Thanks in advanced!

Originally Posted by OpenRange

I am a hunter. I just see BOTH sides of this. Im sorry Cat but the direction this always goes on the forum is a bash against leaseholders and heaven forbid a leaseholder speaks to the contrary. I have gone and asked premission and been denied. I gave the rancher my card and said if he changes his mind let me know. As soon as he saw I was a rancher as well I got permission. He knows I will treat his land like its my own. More people just need to look at the big picture and realize they arent the only ones wanting access. Once the door swings open that's it. Hunters want access, I get that. But so do the off roaders, hikers, campers etc. They have a equal opportunity and right to those acres. Think of it this way, leaseholders are like a strainer, we strain out the off roaders, recreational shooters and campers and let the hunters and hikers pass through. Hunters complain, the door gets thrown open and then what? There is no one there to protect the public lands. There isnt enough man power within Public Lands to patrol and montior the total lease land base by themselves. Thats where leaseholders come in. It would be great if ALL hunters were like some of you guys on here and phone to ask, follow rules laid out and respect the land, problem is for every 2 of you good guys theres 15 abusers. Both sides need to work together to mend these relationships instead of running to public lands to complain, listen to their concerns and be respectful even if the answer is no. If that guy starts to see more respect who knows he might have a change of heart and ease up. Painting all leaseholders as terrible people is no more helpful then leaseholders painting all hunters as abusers.

While I agree for the most part with your this last post, the OP is basically being told he has to wait for the leaseholder be done hunting, which in my opinion abusing the access "policy".

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by LKILR

The best way to deal with lease holders that "play the system" is to ask once politely. Then if they so no for so silly reason I just go on foot. The worst you can get is a $275 fine that you can go to court for and plead not guilty forcing a trial that would require the leaseholder to attend. I takes my chances in court. Before you ask I'll tell you that I have never been charged yet because they know it will be a big waste of their time.

I've noticed that you often post incorrect information. A definite pattern.

Once again, you are wrong in stating that a trespassing charge being the "worst" a person could receive if found to be trespassing while hunting.

I'll let you figure it out, the learning could become habitual.

Originally Posted by smith88

While I agree for the most part with your this last post, the OP is basically being told he has to wait for the leaseholder be done hunting, which in my opinion abusing the access "policy".

Not just "policy", but the lease agreement itself.

It's pretty frustrating when some people defend the "Rights" of others to ignore the legal responsibilities associated with holding a grazing lease.

[Sledhead71]

This thread will do nothing for positive relations and access to lands for our recreational purposes. Only a few weeks away and I'm sure we will see more lands off limits which is a shame.

[albertadeer]

Go buy your own grazing lease if your such a baby about no access... Jeez people, there's enough crownland you don't have to be whining about not accessing a 1/4 cause you saw elk on it...

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by Sledhead71

This thread will do nothing for positive relations and access to lands for our recreational purposes. Only a few weeks away and I'm sure we will see more lands off limits which is a shame.

On the other hand, the only reason we have the current level of public access to grazing leases is due to public discourse. In the past, being nice and civil did not enable anything but further restrictions.

Without public pressure and the willingness of an individual to fight in court for ALL of our rights, we would likely not have anywhere near the level of hunting access to grazing leases experienced today.


The ABP and others are gearing up for a heavy battle to legislate paid hunting access to private land and greater control of grazing leases....

Is staying quiet going to stop this effort?

[Scott h]

Originally Posted by sjd

I think if we wanted to now would be a pretty good time to change the lease access system once and for all. The new government would probably be much more receptive to a change than the crony-PCs. AFGA could partner with other enviros that seem to have the ear of this government and we could get this done.

Need to move from the current permission system where we all know lease holders are playing games to one where the norm is free foot access for legal hunting, hiking etc.

No camping, fires or motorized access without permission.

If there are abuses, leassees should document them and government should punish abusers.

Its public land. Respectfully, if leassees don't like terms they are free to give up the leases to those who want to share. No-one if forcing them to lease Alberta's lands at sweetheart rates.

My vote for the best well thought out post
It would effectively open all government owned lease land to be used by the REAL owners. The public! It should be open to all if they want to hike, berry pick, take pictures or hunt. Those farmer/ranchers that have the lease for grazing, would still be able to use it for.....grazing. Public foot ( no vehicle), no camping or fires access would not hurt there grazing one bit. No more disputes. Everyone is happy. If the farmer/rancher would prefer to have exclusive rights to a property then there is lots out there to purchase and I'm sure someone else would take over the lease.

[Scott h]

Originally Posted by DJS

News flash...all the leaseholders I know do own their own dirt. They use lease land to graze cattle on. Without lease land Alberta would not have the amount of cattle it does. Cattle ranching and farming are two of this provinces biggest industries. Makes no sense at all to take away leases just to "return it to the people of Alberta" for recreational purposes. Need to use a little bit of common sense here. If a lease holder has a good reason to want to keep people out then that should be respected. If a lease is sitting idle, no cattle on it then absolutely, permission should be granted.

No need to take the property back from the lease holder. Tweek the wording a little so anyone can walk on to any government lease to hunt, hike, photograph, ect. The cows won't care in the least.

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by LKILR

The best way to deal with lease holders that "play the system" is to ask once politely. Then if they so no for so silly reason I just go on foot. The worst you can get is a $275 fine that you can go to court for and plead not guilty forcing a trial that would require the leaseholder to attend. I takes my chances in court. Before you ask I'll tell you that I have never been charged yet because they know it will be a big waste of their time.

This forum is to discuss the attributes and enjoyment of LEGAL pursuits of the outdoors, not to advocate unauthorized trespass.
Go through the legal avenue, not what one thinks is okay .
Cat