Open Letter to SRD

[Jimboy]

The simple solution to the land lease holder versus the hunter is to make it law that if a lease holder refuses access to hunters for any reason , then he/she the lease holder shall not have the right to hunt themselves , or anyone else , no private outfitting on such lands or use such lands for any other purpose then grazing , and that would include trail rides ,rec camps etc , then we will see a change.

[Fort fisherman]

Why as a land owner should I be "forced" to allow anybody on my land. You want land to hunt go buy your own! short of that, maybe its your entitlement attitude that make the farmers and landowners refuse you access!

as a kid growing up on the farm and finding bullet holes in the homestead buildings makes you want to "retrict access" .

[JohninAB]

Originally Posted by Fort fisherman

Why as a land owner should I be "forced" to allow anybody on my land. You want land to hunt go buy your own! short of that, maybe its your entitlement attitude that make the farmers and landowners refuse you access!

as a kid growing up on the farm and finding bullet holes in the homestead buildings makes you want to "retrict access" .

Think his concern is with those who hold grazing leases and restrict access to hunting them even though they only lease the land from the province.

[npauls]

Its not the land owners he is talking about. It is the Lease holders.

2 different situations there.

[Donkey Oatey]

Originally Posted by npauls

Its not the land owners he is talking about. It is the Lease holders.

2 different situations there.

And that is the root of the problem right there. Lease Holders that think they are land OWNERS.

[Fort fisherman]

I retract some of it then, But again as a lease holder who likely has cattle feeding, and constantly having to go rewrangle cattle and close fences.....
been on the other side, and I am a hunter... a few as usual ruin it for the masses...

[steve]

Originally Posted by Fort fisherman

I retract some of it then, But again as a lease holder who likely has cattle feeding, and constantly having to go rewrangle cattle and close fences.....
been on the other side, and I am a hunter... a few as usual ruin it for the masses...

Leaseholder has right to graze his cattle on public land in the summer. Thats where his rights should end and anyone should be able to hunt it. It is our land.

[Jimboy]

Originally Posted by Fort fisherman

Why as a land owner should I be "forced" to allow anybody on my land. You want land to hunt go buy your own! short of that, maybe its your entitlement attitude that make the farmers and landowners refuse you access!

as a kid growing up on the farm and finding bullet holes in the homestead buildings makes you want to "retrict access" .

Read it again Bud

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by Jimboy

The simple solution to the land lease holder versus the hunter is to make it law that if a lease holder refuses access to hunters for any reason , then he/she the lease holder shall not have the right to hunt themselves , or anyone else , no private outfitting on such lands...

I can see that solution for lease sites. We've all seen oil field employees show up with a key to the gate far too often on opening morning, let themselves in and then close the gate behind them. If it's an O&G lease or road, it's an O&G lease or road, not a private hunting preserve.

As for grazing leases - get rid of them. They are a holdover from the last century. A farmer or rancher who needs welfare should find another line of work.

[duffy4]

Originally Posted by Jimboy

The simple solution to the land lease holder versus the hunter is to make it law that if a lease holder refuses access to hunters for any reason , then he/she the lease holder shall not have the right to hunt themselves , or anyone else , no private outfitting on such lands or use such lands for any other purpose then grazing , and that would include trail rides ,rec camps etc , then we will see a change.

I don't think this is the best solution.

No doubt there are some lease holders who try and refuse access to some hunters so that they or their friends (or outfitters) can hunt the property.

But how many?

Buy your solution, any lease holder who just wants to keep people off could just take advantage of your law and say "fine, my friends and I will not hunt here (whether he ever hunted or not) so no one can come on the land."


The system in place now for hunters to get access to public land under a lease is "pretty good". It needs some improvements so it can be a little easier for the hunters to get on and a little harder for some lease holders to unjustly keep them off.

Originally Posted by duffy4

No doubt there are some lease holders who try and refuse access to some hunters so that they or their friends (or outfitters) can hunt the property.

But how many?

.

From what I've seen, it's becoming far more common and truthfully, one person doing it is one too many. It is public land!

[duffy4]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

From what I've seen, it's becoming far more common and truthfully, one person doing it is one too many. It is public land!

LOL!
Yes but if you saw the rest of my post, the point is that to taylor make a rule to stop that abuse may just open it up for a far greater abuse.

Originally Posted by duffy4

LOL!
Yes but if you saw the rest of my post, the point is that to taylor make a rule to stop that abuse may just open it up for a far greater abuse.

Or it may fix the problem...........

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by duffy4

No doubt there are some lease holders who try and refuse access to some hunters so that they or their friends (or outfitters) can hunt the property.

But how many?

Lots.

It doesn't work quite that way. It involves a locked gate, usually, and them that has keys and them that don't.

[JohninAB]

see next post. lol

[kayaker]

Originally Posted by Jimboy

The simple solution to the land lease holder versus the hunter is to make it law that if a lease holder refuses access to hunters for any reason , then he/she the lease holder shall not have the right to hunt themselves , or anyone else , no private outfitting on such lands or use such lands for any other purpose then grazing , and that would include trail rides ,rec camps etc , then we will see a change.

Agreed, otherwise its not only a grazing lease it's paying for an exclusive hunting opportunity of public land.

Originally Posted by Jimboy

The simple solution to the land lease holder versus the hunter is to make it law that if a lease holder refuses access to hunters for any reason , then he/she the lease holder shall not have the right to hunt themselves , or anyone else , no private outfitting on such lands or use such lands for any other purpose then grazing , and that would include trail rides ,rec camps etc , then we will see a change.

I definitely wouldn't agree with that. This is public land and it should not be shut down to the public for hunting, regardless of what the leaseholder does or doesn't do.

[sunsetrider2011]

Its interesting this is still going on,, In response to what you propose. Thats fine,, also their should be a mandatory jail term for people who go on public property and destroy it, by however means,, cutting fences, letting cattle out to get hit by vehicles or cause havoc in the areas. However if you feel its your right, to do so then so be it. However I stand by my comments in a previous thread that all private land that is deeded owned, by me, and all my surrounding neighbours have closed access to any outside folks Ie hunters ect., because of the said attitudes of a few that feel they are entitled. this has nothing to do with leased land. but it has to do with the majority of the owned properties in the area.

However Rocky7 , It is never welfare when one has to pay for something. Ie the right to graze at so much per head per acre,plus the said property taxes, plus install and maintain fences and watering facilities or dugouts, None of this is government funded its all out of the lease holders pocket. It is the attitudes of a few that have started the war between landowners or leaseholders with in the hunting community.

It goes pack to one of my first comments of a previous thread,, about having a lil respect ,, and talking to the lease holder or landowner about access and asking as such. Its quite simple really and most of us as seasoned hunters, have had it engrained in our minds to be respectful of the area and the people that own or lease the lands,,at least thats the way i was brought up. If I wanted something I asked ,,usually 99% of the time it was always granted. Or if it ewasnt it wasnt a big deal as he had his reasons. Making a big stink over it isnt the solution and all it does is creat more problems for future hunters trying to get access, I think you will find you will hit more and more brick walls as time goes on.

The governent has sent out some letters as of late about offering the purchase of some of our leases for a so much an acres at fair market value,I think My self and a few other will just shell out the cash, and have it deeded than have to deal with the issues that arise from it being a lease.

[DustDee]

Originally Posted by sunsetrider2011

Its interesting this is still going on,, In response to what you propose. Thats fine,, also their should be a mandatory jail term for people who go on public property and destroy it, by however means,, cutting fences, letting cattle out to get hit by vehicles or cause havoc in the areas. However if you feel its your right, to do so then so be it. However I stand by my comments in a previous thread that all private land that is deeded owned, by me, and all my surrounding neighbours have closed access to any outside folks Ie hunters ect., because of the said attitudes of a few that feel they are entitled. this has nothing to do with leased land. but it has to do with the majority of the owned properties in the area.

However Rocky7 , It is never welfare when one has to pay for something. Ie the right to graze at so much per head per acre,plus the said property taxes, plus install and maintain fences and watering facilities or dugouts, None of this is government funded its all out of the lease holders pocket. It is the attitudes of a few that have started the war between landowners or leaseholders with in the hunting community.

It goes pack to one of my first comments of a previous thread,, about having a lil respect ,, and talking to the lease holder or landowner about access and asking as such. Its quite simple really and most of us as seasoned hunters, have had it engrained in our minds to be respectful of the area and the people that own or lease the lands,,at least thats the way i was brought up. If I wanted something I asked ,,usually 99% of the time it was always granted. Or if it ewasnt it wasnt a big deal as he had his reasons. Making a big stink over it isnt the solution and all it does is creat more problems for future hunters trying to get access, I think you will find you will hit more and more brick walls as time goes on.

The governent has sent out some letters as of late about offering the purchase of some of our leases for a so much an acres at fair market value,I think My self and a few other will just shell out the cash, and have it deeded than have to deal with the issues that arise from it being a lease.

Well said.

[pikergolf]

Where would a guy find info on the sale of public land?

[C & C]

Originally Posted by sunsetrider2011

Its interesting this is still going on,, In response to what you propose. Thats fine,, also their should be a mandatory jail term for people who go on public property and destroy it, by however means,, cutting fences, letting cattle out to get hit by vehicles or cause havoc in the areas. However if you feel its your right, to do so then so be it. However I stand by my comments in a previous thread that all private land that is deeded owned, by me, and all my surrounding neighbours have closed access to any outside folks Ie hunters ect., because of the said attitudes of a few that feel they are entitled. this has nothing to do with leased land. but it has to do with the majority of the owned properties in the area.

However Rocky7 , It is never welfare when one has to pay for something. Ie the right to graze at so much per head per acre,plus the said property taxes, plus install and maintain fences and watering facilities or dugouts, None of this is government funded its all out of the lease holders pocket. It is the attitudes of a few that have started the war between landowners or leaseholders with in the hunting community.

It goes pack to one of my first comments of a previous thread,, about having a lil respect ,, and talking to the lease holder or landowner about access and asking as such. Its quite simple really and most of us as seasoned hunters, have had it engrained in our minds to be respectful of the area and the people that own or lease the lands,,at least thats the way i was brought up. If I wanted something I asked ,,usually 99% of the time it was always granted. Or if it ewasnt it wasnt a big deal as he had his reasons. Making a big stink over it isnt the solution and all it does is creat more problems for future hunters trying to get access, I think you will find you will hit more and more brick walls as time goes on.

The governent has sent out some letters as of late about offering the purchase of some of our leases for a so much an acres at fair market value,I think My self and a few other will just shell out the cash, and have it deeded than have to deal with the issues that arise from it being a lease.

LOL..you said you don't even have lease land, why keep telling everyone you dont allow hunters on your own land? We get it, its your land and the people who wreck stuff won't ask anyways.
I think its a great solution to have it like the OP said.

I would totally support a system that required hunters to sign in when hunting lease land so the leaseholder has some idea of who is on the land and who might be responsible for damages but that's where I draw the line.

The system was created to provide grazing for ranchers, not private playgrounds. I totally support the land being utilized for grazing but I don't support private individuals controlling access to public land.

[sunsetrider2011]

[QUOTE=sheephunter;1643540]I would totally support a system that required hunters to sign in when hunting lease land so the leaseholder has some idea of who is on the land and who might be responsible for damages

This should be mandatory, not an option

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

I would totally support a system that required hunters to sign in when hunting lease land so the leaseholder has some idea of who is on the land and who might be responsible for damages but that's where I draw the line.

The system was created to provide grazing for ranchers, not private playgrounds. I totally support the land being utilized for grazing but I don't support private individuals controlling access to public land.

Sounds like a good idea. Also, as hunters we also need to move away from the old school mindset of I don't squeal or rat people out. If we don't help police what goes on, we all lose out, that includes being ready to testify. I've been guilty of letting things go because it's not my land, but after reading this board the last year I'm not so willing to let things go anymore. I can see stuff that I thought a land owner would not want to deal with, maybe they would, if someone would follow through right to the end, as in court wittiness.

[Stinky Buffalo]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

I would totally support a system that required hunters to sign in when hunting lease land so the leaseholder has some idea of who is on the land and who might be responsible for damages

A good idea, but where that breaks down is when someone who doesn't sign in causes problems, and it's your name on the list...

Or when someone on the list causes damage but denies it - putting the other people on the list in bad light.

It can be hard to tell when an incident occured. Who would be responsible?

[sunsetrider2011]

Originally Posted by C & C

LOL..you said you don't even have lease land, why keep telling everyone you dont allow hunters on your own land? We get it, its your land and the people who wreck stuff won't ask anyways.
I think its a great solution to have it like the OP said.

Where did you read that I dont have any lease land? Never once did i state As such,,I might not have as much as others in the area but enough to have a say.

[Sneeze]

Originally Posted by sunsetrider2011

The governent has sent out some letters as of late about offering the purchase of some of our leases for a so much an acres at fair market value,I think My self and a few other will just shell out the cash, and have it deeded than have to deal with the issues that arise from it being a lease.

Did anybody else catch this statement?

I don't want to jump the gun here but your telling me the province has sent out offers to purchase lease land without open competition on the land to allow price discovery?

Sunset, can you provide us with any more details on these offers? It is the first time I have heard of it.

Frig... First time I have said it:

I didn't vote for her.

Originally Posted by Sneeze

Did anybody else catch this statement?

I don't want to jump the gun here but your telling me the province has sent out offers to purchase lease land without open competition on the land to allow price discovery?

Sunset, can you provide us with any more details on these offers? It is the first time I have heard of it.

Frig... First time I have said it:

I didn't vote for her.

This has been going on for a long time...long before "her"

[Sneeze]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

This has been going on for a long time...long before "her"

Have any references I could look at? Maybe I am late, but would like to know more.

[sunsetrider2011]

Originally Posted by Sneeze

Did anybody else catch this statement?

I don't want to jump the gun here but your telling me the province has sent out offers to purchase lease land without open competition on the land to allow price discovery?

Sunset, can you provide us with any more details on these offers? It is the first time I have heard of it.

Frig... First time I have said it:

I didn't vote for her.

It has nothing to do with Queen redford,, It has been common knowledge for years, The governement gets enough headache from certain things with a grazing lease, they say enough and it is first put back to the leaseholder with first option to purchase outright, if the lease holder doesnt purchases it it goes up for tender, or is put back up for lease,,and usually the previous lease holders signs another lease for a period of time with other provisions. As for the livestock having to be out within certain dates. that is only relevent in certain instances. Prairie grazing leases will depend what is written in each individual lease agreement. Some leases I know can hold a 365 day rotation at the descretion of the lease holder.

Also if it has been proven that there has been damage to a lease by hunters or sportsman that has been visually inspected by an srd delegate or srd claims officer, application can be made to have the lease ammended to include limited access, Hence the gates or other measures to restrict access. Whether its is right or wrong, it is a possiblity in some circumstances. It very simple respect the land, respect the people that have to deal with it,, and usually life goes on as normal.