Lease Land

[willy]

I agree with grandslammer goin to do more harm then good in the long run.

[HBOMB]

Set him straight - shoot a couple of his cows one night???

LOL.

KIDDING!!

Geez - calm down - I am only kidding!

Good on you setting him straight though!!

[FiveO]

Originally Posted by willy

I agree with grandslammer goin to do more harm then good in the long run.

So every one has to follow the rules but lease holders? BS. As a tax paying Albertan I own that land and so does everyone else. The rules are put in place for everyones benefit if the lease holder doesn't like what the government has in place then maybe he should forfeit the lease and it should become general crown that way he wont have the problems associated with following the rules put forth by SRD and can spend his time policing what he owns and not what he rents off me and you.

[thumper]

Thanks for fighting the good fight 5-O

I phoned in 3 leaseholders this year who refused access because:

1) My wife doesn't like hunting
2) I have cattle on those sections (he didn't)
3) Must provide 14 days notice - sorry, still have cows on - will phone you when they're off - no return phone call

In all 3 cases I asked the land manager to set the leaseholders straight, even though I had moved on to other leases to hunt this year and was not going to call them back. Hopefully they'll be better educated when the next guy calls for access - and if there's more complaints coming in, then the land manager has to take action. In the above cases, the land managers phoned me back to let me know how their conversations turned out, and one actually gave me a great tip on a new whitetail spot, with a reluctant leaseholder, and asked me to be sure to give him a call back if the leaseholder gave me any grief.

There's one more I'm still pursuing, with photos of NO HUNTING signs, padlocked gates and refusal to permit access. It's also a winter project of mine to document these and write to AFGA to keep them informed, as well as the minister.

In my opinion, the responsibilities of the recreationalist seeking access are very clearly spelled out, as are the penalties. Yet we don't know what restrictive conditions are permitted to be demanded by the leaseholder, and what's b.s. - such as the leaseholder limiting the number of recreationalists on the lease, (I've had that pulled on me as well 2 years ago, also from a leaseholder that happens to als be an outfitter- which was also dropped after I placed call to the regional land manager) From what I can see, the responsibilities of the leaseholder don't seem nearly as well spelled out, and many leaseholders I've contacted don't seem to have any clue that they can't deny access as if it was their private land. I'll be recommending that the 'recreational access' rules be printed on a brochure that goes out to every leaseholder with their renewal forms, and be incorporated as a condition - right into their lease agreements.

Overall, I think that the system is a good one (excepting some bogus conditions permitted for refusing access) - it's just that everyone needs to play by the rules.

[nekred]

Reason with the reasonable....

But if one party is being unreasonable.... Reason and negotiation won't work... set the right precedent......That seems to be where we are now....

[Waxy]

Originally Posted by thumper

Thanks for fighting the good fight 5-O

I phoned in 3 leaseholders this year who refused access because:

1) My wife doesn't like hunting
2) I have cattle on those sections (he didn't)
3) Must provide 14 days notice - sorry, still have cows on - will phone you when they're off - no return phone call

In all 3 cases I asked the land manager to set the leaseholders straight, even though I had moved on to other leases to hunt this year and was not going to call them back. Hopefully they'll be better educated when the next guy calls for access - and if there's more complaints coming in, then the land manager has to take action. In the above cases, the land managers phoned me back to let me know how their conversations turned out, and one actually gave me a great tip on a new whitetail spot, with a reluctant leaseholder, and asked me to be sure to give him a call back if the leaseholder gave me any grief.

There's one more I'm still pursuing, with photos of NO HUNTING signs, padlocked gates and refusal to permit access. It's also a winter project of mine to document these and write to AFGA to keep them informed, as well as the minister.

In my opinion, the responsibilities of the recreationalist seeking access are very clearly spelled out, as are the penalties. Yet we don't know what restrictive conditions are permitted to be demanded by the leaseholder, and what's b.s. - such as the leaseholder limiting the number of recreationalists on the lease, (I've had that pulled on me as well 2 years ago, also from a leaseholder that happens to als be an outfitter- which was also dropped after I placed call to the regional land manager) From what I can see, the responsibilities of the leaseholder don't seem nearly as well spelled out, and many leaseholders I've contacted don't seem to have any clue that they can't deny access as if it was their private land. I'll be recommending that the 'recreational access' rules be printed on a brochure that goes out to every leaseholder with their renewal forms, and be incorporated as a condition - right into their lease agreements.

Overall, I think that the system is a good one (excepting some bogus conditions permitted for refusing access) - it's just that everyone needs to play by the rules.

Great work Thumper. Some good ideas.

Waxy

[FiveO]

Another update....

Got a letter from SRD with a decision mailed to myself and the lease holder.


1. No Vehicular access... Im fine with that nice land to walk.

2. No access on quarter adjacent to domestic Elk farm... No problem

3. No access were cattle present... Fair enough


I called tonight for weekend access, left a message with details to whom ever it was that answered. See if this donkey says no and if so he will get what's coming to him.

[Duk Dog]

WOW, I'm not sure how I missed this post. Good work FiveO, I hope the system ends up working for you. I've used the arbitrator in the past and it has worked quite quickly and effectively for me. On a couple of different pieces of property I got denied unreasonably, but a quick call to the land manager and I was quickly called me back (within a 1/2 hour) and we were good to go. I'd never heard of a lease holder taking it to the extent that this one has that you have run in to. Good luck, and continue to keep us posted.

[FiveO]

Update....

The lease holder finally got back to me today and his answer was the same as our first conversation "NO HUNTING".
He went against the Land Managers decisions and is quickly painting himself into a corner. Not sure were this leaves the lease holder except either holding a fine or possible court time?.

Keep you all posted.

[flower]

Hey Five 0, He will. Phone the SRD they will deal with it.

[MathewsArcher]

System sure is working well.
I'm sure similar problems with occur with resident access in 108 and 300 when the new legislation starts likely in 2008.

[Okotokian]

Some days I slide right to the extreme.... get rid of all leases. Why should someone have control of public land just because they have the cash? Make all lease land total public access, 24/7... no cattle on it, no nothing. Just for hunters, hikers, bird watchers, whatever...

there's my rant LOL.

[mackenzie71]

I have a question about this; what is the criteria for being able to lease land from the government? I'm just trying to familiarize myself with this issue. I haven't hunted in Alberta for quite some time. It sounds like a lot has changed.

[Bull Shooter]

Originally Posted by mackenzie71

I have a question about this; what is the criteria for being able to lease land from the government? I'm just trying to familiarize myself with this issue. I haven't hunted in Alberta for quite some time. It sounds like a lot has changed.

This site should contain the information:

http://www.srd.gov.ab.ca/lands/using...d/default.aspx

Regards, Mike

[mackenzie71]

Thanks, I'll take a look at it shortly. One of the reasons I asked is would it be possible or feesable for an sportsmans group to lease some land for themselves, for hunting, fishing and other outdoor activites. I'm not even sure if it's financially worthwhile. Also will that just iopen another can of worms?

[sirmike68]

Let me guess next week after the elk season is closed he'll have no problem letting you on. Maybe he is testing how far he can push the syetem.

[willy]

mackenzie to have a grazing lease you have to own the cattle to stock the grazing land and it has to be done to the regulations.
Okotokian you say to sell all lease lands to highest bidders you think that will solve any problems other then people like the seamens would own a bunch more hunting ground. Theres not alot of money in haveing the grazing leases wish i woulda put it toward deeded land. Whats the percentage that are hard to get access to? I think five-0 case is the exception and not rule.
I think the system works pretty good.

[MathewsArcher]

Definately not the exception I know of several others in the immediate Calgary area and near Rocky Mountain House and I'm sure its not isolated to these areas. Most just couldn't be bothered challengin the lease holders not following the rules

[grandslamer]

better check to see how many lease holder have been fined and then convicted and had pay the fine tha answer is a whoppin zero
again it all boils down to the reasonable access and the reasonable part is in the hands of the lease holder all he has to say is i let one guy in to hunt and that is resonable access to him and thats it its over nothing can be done..

while no lease holder fines has ever been held up there has been 3 hunters(that i know for sure) 2 down south and one north of evansburg that have been charge for harrassment and been convicted in two of the case they keep contacting the lease holder trying to force him to allow the to hunt
threating action and fine after he had said he had enough hunter and to come back eairlier next year cause he limits the number of hunters (not quite sure but i think it 6)for what he said was a safty issue now in thi case the hunter we in my opinion 100 percent wrong and now the lease holder is ****ed off and wont allow hunter on any private land he own which is 32 quaters in the area and lots of those quarter and prime areas to hunt..
but because of this "ILL TEACH HIM A LESSON"attitude every body else gets screwed
if people keep trying to push their definition of a law that is in the grey area at best the one that suffer is everyone else that hunts as wll as futrure hunters.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by willy

Okotokian you say to sell all lease lands to highest bidders you think that will solve any problems other then people like the seamens would own a bunch more hunting ground. Theres not alot of money in haveing the grazing leases wish i woulda put it toward deeded land. Whats the percentage that are hard to get access to? I think five-0 case is the exception and not rule.
I think the system works pretty good.

I think you misread what I wrote. I didn't say sell off lease land to the highest bidder. I said just the opposite. I said get rid of the leases and make it all public access land. And yes, I know that is an off-the-wall suggestion that will never happen. Just nice to dream

[FiveO]

I called SRD this morning and the lease holder is challenging the decision of the (his) Land Manager and putting the challenge in front of the director of lands, the lease owner is gearing up for a fight. I will have a decision from the director shortly (within couple weeks). This just may end up in court, the lease holder is challenging all of our rights as Albertans

Merry Christmas All, wont be posting for a while heading to the cabin for the holidays...

Cheers.

[BUD]

Originally Posted by FiveO

I called SRD this morning and the lease holder is challenging the decision of the (his) Land Manager and putting the challenge in front of the director of lands, the lease owner is gearing up for a fight. I will have a decision from the director shortly (within couple weeks). This just may end up in court, the lease holder is challenging all of our rights as Albertans

Merry Christmas All, wont be posting for a while heading to the cabin for the holidays...

Cheers.

GOOD FOR YOU, hope it gets on the tv news ,
Merry Christmas

[dbllung]

I actually had a lease holder ask me to pay him 100 dollars a day this year to access the land that we all own. It has gotten wwaaaaayyy out of hand.

[Jamie]

Originally Posted by dbllung

I actually had a lease holder ask me to pay him 100 dollars a day this year to access the land that we all own. It has gotten wwaaaaayyy out of hand.

Care to share more?
Any thoughts of reporting him?
This kind of stuff has to be nipped in the Bud and these RENTERS need to know what is right, and what is not!

Jamie

Interesting stuff. We have a case going on right now down in 303 where the lease holder has allowed foot access for years but now his nephew has taken over and has made the local F&W boys charge all people found on the lease $284.00 for trespass. The land is not posted and there is no cattle any where close to it. I think the case goes to court in January. A few of my friends have been charged so I'm following this quite closely. I'd sure like to see the tables turned on this case and have the landowner walk away with the fine.

Oops, I meant to say that I'd like to see the lease holder walk away with the fine.

[Jamie]

JP..
Did your friend follow the rules?
A bit mor info would be helpful

Thanks
Jamie

[honda450]

jptrapper keep us informed of the outcome. Thanks.

[209x50]

Wow Five 0, this dude figures he can do what he wants doen't he? Stick to your guns and keep us updated.

[FiveO]

Update.
The lease holder filed for an extension for an appeal and was given till the end of the month to appeal the decision.