what to do... (Grazing Lease problems)

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by rednuck

If the public own my leases, I guess I do own it since I am a member of the public. I don't feel I am ruining it by saving a couple whitetails for a few years when others are out hunting Mule Deer, Sometimes elk and hopefully if the right person stops in this year a nice moose that showed up after harvest.

As a leasee you are doing more damage phoning in leaseholders and complaining. 1 AUM is nothing to most leaseholders, but it means everything for permission.

Your saving a moose on public land for your buddy?

[Deer Hunter]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

I'm glad you are still using this public land.

So it is clear. From the same webpage you quoted.
http://aep.alberta.ca/recreation-pub...d/default.aspx

Can leaseholders deny access whenever livestock are on the lease?

If livestock are not impacted by the visit, leaseholders are expected to provide access. Leaseholders are expected to follow the intent of this legislation, which is to balance the right of recreational users to access with the leaseholder's need to protect the land or livestock from possible harm. Moving a few cattle from one pasture to another to prevent recreational access is an example of not following the intent of the legislation.

Intent. Yes I argued that too but these settlement guys and leaseholders are birds of a feather, and they don't care about intent or rec access. I have learned this from real experience, not just a website. Do you have a real experience you want to share?

And no I don't hunt there any longer.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by Deer Hunter

Intent. Yes I argued that too but these settlement guys and leaseholders are birds of a feather, and they don't care about intent or rec access. I have learned this from real experience, not just a website. Do you have a real experience you want to share?

And no I don't hunt there any longer.

Not in all cases, I spoke with one who offered to contact a lease holder that likes to play with the loopholes. I didn't pursue it, but I'm thinking I'll take him up on it this year.

[Jack&7]

What this comes down to...is greed.

Greed on the part of those "hunters" who do like to collect permission as one poster stated...

Greed from those that have no respect for the landowners, shooting at whatever whenever they choose...and hence the reason why some leaseholders feel the need to lock down properties on which they have no legal right in doing so.

and greed from the leaseholders who play the game...saving animals for their friends or (and I detest this most of all), restricting access to all except those who can and will grease their palms (like certain outfitters)

The greed is on all sides...and it is extremely difficult for those decent hunters AND leaseholders to wade thru the crap every year. It grows tiresome.

[Jordan Smith]

Very true!

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by Jordan Smith

Very true!

If you are referring to Jack&7, x2.

[Deer Hunter]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

I'm glad you are still using this public land.

So it is clear. From the same webpage you quoted.
http://aep.alberta.ca/recreation-pub...d/default.aspx

Can leaseholders deny access whenever livestock are on the lease?

If livestock are not impacted by the visit, leaseholders are expected to provide access. Leaseholders are expected to follow the intent of this legislation, which is to balance the right of recreational users to access with the leaseholder's need to protect the land or livestock from possible harm. Moving a few cattle from one pasture to another to prevent recreational access is an example of not following the intent of the legislation.

Sorry to sidetrack this thread but its important to note that the website, the regulations mean very little when it comes to actual treatment by some lessees and some settlement officers.
I pulled up the access conditions of this lease that we were denied access to several years ago. We got the settlement officer out of red deer involved. He made a call, acknowledged the lease was being used for outfitting and said that the lessee had requested that we not be allowed access. I said you must be kidding. He replied that the lessee was going to move in a horse and that he requested special conditions that prevented rec access. I argued but lost. When I pull up the lease today this is what is there:

Regulatory Conditions of Recreational Access:
Under sections 9(3) and 9(4) of the Recreational Access Regulation, recreational users must:
• not litter;
• have direct control of any animal brought onto the
agricultural disposition land;
• not park vehicles so that they block an approach to land;
• not enter or use any building or improvement on the
disposition;
• not cause any damage to the agricultural disposition land
or the property of the disposition holder;
• leave gates and other property as they were found;
• comply with an applicable recreational management plan, if
any; and
• comply with the restrictions, prohibitions, terms and
conditions, if any, imposed by the Local Settlement
Officer, or Director.

In the event of a dispute, the onus is on the person wishing to gain access to prove that the requirements above have been complied with.

It is an offence under the Recreational Access Regulation to access the land without following any contact requirements or conditions of access listed above. Violators may be prosecuted.

Specific Access Conditions for this Disposition:
No recreational management plan, restrictions, prohibitions or terms and conditions of use have been established by a Local Settlement Officer or Director.

Leaseholder Conditions as Approved by the Minister:
• Please contact at least 14 days before accessing
lease.
• No access if livestock in field.

Outfitting continues to go on here with no public rec access allowed.
Maybe i'll try for permission this year? Nah, not worth it.

[Ithaca Dog]

So the government expects me to be able to tell the difference between:
a mule deer and a whitetail,
a moose and an elk.
A six point and a five point elk,
a 4/5 curl ram and one that's just a little too small.
A hen and rooster pheasant on the wing
A sharptail and a hen pheseant
A pintail and a mallard.

All of these on the wing or hoof before I pull the trigger and I am held legally accountable for my decisions.

However...

I am not trusted to tell the difference between a deer and a cow? That a leasee can obstruct my access to public land because they have livestock on it is ridiculous.

I realize that there are slob hunters out their, but they should be forced to own up to their actions and pay for their mistakes. I would have no issue with an individual being required to contact the lease holder or a government office to check in before hunting an area in order to receive access. This would allow LEOS to investigate illegal actions on public leased property, both wildlife related and other offences, including destruction of property.

[xmastree]

Originally Posted by rednuck

If the public own my leases, I guess I do own it since I am a member of the public. I don't feel I am ruining it by saving a couple whitetails for a few years when others are out hunting Mule Deer, Sometimes elk and hopefully if the right person stops in this year a nice moose that showed up after harvest.

As a leasee you are doing more damage phoning in leaseholders and complaining. 1 AUM is nothing to most leaseholders, but it means everything for permission.

Good old rednek, dictator of public land! How much does the "right" person have to pay for the moose? In dollars? Butt kissin?

[rednuck]

Originally Posted by Talking moose

Your saving a moose on public land for your buddy?

hah nope nice try though, I don't know anyone that got one of the 5 tags in my zone, believe me I've tried phoning around. I am just hoping someone spots him in MY DEEDED stubble field and stops in for permission. I would like to see them have a successful hunt. There's a cow to, but her and the calf live in the caragana's surrounding my house. I know AO thinks they have the right to hunt those as well but I am extra greedy and like my house without extra holes in it.

[Albertacoyotecaller]

Big brush strokes. Big brush strokes.

[abhunter8]

I don't mean to derail the thread but wanted to share my experience from yesterday. I contacted a leaseholder in south eastern Alberta regarding access to hunt antelope. She advised they have given sole access to their neighbour outfitter and if I wanted to hunt I needed to hunt through him. For clarification I said... You mean that if I want to hunt your lease I have to pay him thousands of dollars and hunt through him... Her answer was Yes. I advised her that I was going to be talking to fish and wildlife as well as the AB gov't grazing lease representative. Fish and wildlife thanked me for reporting and are looking into it.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by abhunter8

I don't mean to derail the thread but wanted to share my experience from yesterday. I contacted a leaseholder in south eastern Alberta regarding access to hunt antelope. She advised they have given sole access to their neighbour outfitter and if I wanted to hunt I needed to hunt through him. For clarification I said... You mean that if I want to hunt your lease I have to pay him thousands of dollars and hunt through him... Her answer was Yes. I advised her that I was going to be talking to fish and wildlife as well as the AB gov't grazing lease representative. Fish and wildlife thanked me for reporting and are looking into it.

Appreciate your efforts. Please follow up with F&W to make sure they follow through. It would be wise to make the same call to Report-A-Poacher, this will leave a paper trail that is harder to be lost or forgotten.

Another idea, Give the leaseholder and outfitter a call, and record it, play along as though you will pay to play. Then call F&W.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by Deer Hunter

Sorry to sidetrack this thread but its important to note that the website, the regulations mean very little when it comes to actual treatment by some lessees and some settlement officers.
I pulled up the access conditions of this lease that we were denied access to several years ago. We got the settlement officer out of red deer involved. He made a call, acknowledged the lease was being used for outfitting and said that the lessee had requested that we not be allowed access. I said you must be kidding. He replied that the lessee was going to move in a horse and that he requested special conditions that prevented rec access. I argued but lost. When I pull up the lease today this is what is there:



Outfitting continues to go on here with no public rec access allowed.
Maybe i'll try for permission this year? Nah, not worth it.

Then be prepared to lose more land.


-----

It was asked earlier in the thread what are the consequesnces of accessing a grazing lease without consent of the leaseholder.

I don't know.... but it appears that the Petty Trespass Act does NOT apply.
Maybe there are NO legal ramifications to accessing public land without a leaseholders consent. ???

https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/laws/st...00-c-p-11.html
"Non‑application of Act
1.1 This Act does not apply in respect of a person who, for recreational purposes within the meaning of the regulations under section 62.1 of the Public Lands Act, enters Crown land that is the subject of a grazing lease, grazing permit, farm development lease, cultivation permit, grazing licence, authorization to harvest hay or head tax grazing permit issued under that Act, whether or not the entry is in accordance with that Act and the regulations."

[Jordan Smith]

We need to be yelling long and loud when lessee's break the law (sole permission given to an outfitter), and then take advantage of the lack of enforcement of the law! We can't just sit quietly and wait for the problem to go away. It won't! It will only get worse if we let it!

[HoytCRX32]

Originally Posted by Ithaca Dog

So the government expects me to be able to tell the difference between:
a mule deer and a whitetail,
a moose and an elk.
A six point and a five point elk,
a 4/5 curl ram and one that's just a little too small.
A hen and rooster pheasant on the wing
A sharptail and a hen pheseant
A pintail and a mallard.

All of these on the wing or hoof before I pull the trigger and I am held legally accountable for my decisions.

However...

I am not trusted to tell the difference between a deer and a cow? That a leasee can obstruct my access to public land because they have livestock on it is ridiculous.

I realize that there are slob hunters out their, but they should be forced to own up to their actions and pay for their mistakes. I would have no issue with an individual being required to contact the lease holder or a government office to check in before hunting an area in order to receive access. This would allow LEOS to investigate illegal actions on public leased property, both wildlife related and other offences, including destruction of property.

well said

[HoytCRX32]

Originally Posted by Jordan Smith

We need to be yelling long and loud when lessee's break the law (sole permission given to an outfitter), and then take advantage of the lack of enforcement of the law! We can't just sit quietly and wait for the problem to go away. It won't! It will only get worse if we let it!

Just as any hunter not following rules/laws can be held responsible, any leaseholder not following rules should have to forfeit the lease back to the crown

[Jordan Smith]

Originally Posted by HoytCRX32

Just as any hunter not following rules/laws can be held responsible, any leaseholder not following rules should have to forfeit the lease back to the crown

Yep! Hunters are given fines and warnings, and even suspensions if the contravention is serious enough, or there are repeated incidents. The same should happen to lease holders.

[stringer]

Originally Posted by Deer Hunter

Sorry to sidetrack this thread but its important to note that the website, the regulations mean very little when it comes to actual treatment by some lessees and some settlement officers.
I pulled up the access conditions of this lease that we were denied access to several years ago. We got the settlement officer out of red deer involved. He made a call, acknowledged the lease was being used for outfitting and said that the lessee had requested that we not be allowed access. I said you must be kidding. He replied that the lessee was going to move in a horse and that he requested special conditions that prevented rec access. I argued but lost. When I pull up the lease today this is what is there:



Outfitting continues to go on here with no public rec access allowed.
Maybe i'll try for permission this year? Nah, not worth it.

Your wasting you time talking with the settlement officer as they are in bed with the lease holders in their areas. Contact the ministers office,I would suggest using email as it leaves a paper trail of your conversation.Works every time. Also send a cc to the premiers office.

[stringer]

Originally Posted by Ithaca Dog

So the government expects me to be able to tell the difference between:
a mule deer and a whitetail,
a moose and an elk.
A six point and a five point elk,
a 4/5 curl ram and one that's just a little too small.
A hen and rooster pheasant on the wing
A sharptail and a hen pheseant
A pintail and a mallard.

All of these on the wing or hoof before I pull the trigger and I am held legally accountable for my decisions.

However...

I am not trusted to tell the difference between a deer and a cow? That a leasee can obstruct my access to public land because they have livestock on it is ridiculous.

I realize that there are slob hunters out their, but they should be forced to own up to their actions and pay for their mistakes. I would have no issue with an individual being required to contact the lease holder or a government office to check in before hunting an area in order to receive access. This would allow LEOS to investigate illegal actions on public leased property, both wildlife related and other offences, including destruction of property.

Actually he has no legal grounds for keeping you out even if he has cattle present. The whole recreational use of public land act is all smoke and mirrors and has no teeth for enforcement. The more people that realize this the better.

[albertadeer]

This is such a ridiculous subject. From what I've seen each lease is different. Many of the leases along saddle hills are small, 1/4- 1 section. And I belive they should be treated like private land. I have also hunted and worked on leases by edmonton that were a few sections in size. And to treat those like private land is
A joke!

We had a family lease backing onto crown land, 1/2 section. My family always allowed anyone to hunt it. Though most people stayed away. We would hunt all season and maybe see 1 or 2 neighbours. Then the elk and (new albertans) showed up. This was a game changer. There is now a highway leading from a crownland pipeline onto the lease, down every cut line and every trail. You can't even walk 100m without a truck driving down the line.

My uncle tried putting locks on the gates to the pipeline and the right of way that ends in his lease. Within a week shot off... I've never seen so many disrespectful yahoos as hunting on leases. Rules need to be inforced and fines MUCH stiffer for trespassing on leases without right to access.

[albertadeer]

Originally Posted by stringer

Actually he has no legal grounds for keeping you out even if he has cattle present. The whole recreational use of public land act is all smoke and mirrors and has no teeth for enforcement. The more people that realize this the better.

This is the attitude we DONT need... we need to work with leaseholders to find a compromise. Not try to over run them cause you feel you should hunt there.


Greed is terrible, and mosr leaseholders are just looking out for greedy people.

I'm not sure about the other stories but I've NEVER heard of a leaseholder giving permission just to "outfitters"

That sounds like the same old song and dance as usual from the Anti-outfitting group. I guess anti leaseholder too...

[Jordan Smith]

Originally Posted by albertadeer

This is such a ridiculous subject. From what I've seen each lease is different. Many of the leases along saddle hills are small, 1/4- 1 section. And I belive they should be treated like private land. I have also hunted and worked on leases by edmonton that were a few sections in size. And to treat those like private land is
A joke!

We had a family lease backing onto crown land, 1/2 section. My family always allowed anyone to hunt it. Though most people stayed away. We would hunt all season and maybe see 1 or 2 neighbours. Then the elk and (new albertans) showed up. This was a game changer. There is now a highway leading from a crownland pipeline onto the lease, down every cut line and every trail. You can't even walk 100m without a truck driving down the line.

My uncle tried putting locks on the gates to the pipeline and the right of way that ends in his lease. Within a week shot off... I've never seen so many disrespectful yahoos as hunting on leases. Rules need to be inforced and fines MUCH stiffer for trespassing on leases without right to access.

I pretty much tuned out right there.

[abhunter8]

Originally Posted by albertadeer

This is the attitude we DONT need... we need to work with leaseholders to find a compromise. Not try to over run them cause you feel you should hunt there.


Greed is terrible, and mosr leaseholders are just looking out for greedy people.

I'm not sure about the other stories but I've NEVER heard of a leaseholder giving permission just to "outfitters"

That sounds like the same old song and dance as usual from the Anti-outfitting group. I guess anti leaseholder too...

Hi there. If you don't think this is true, I can give you all the details, could even get telus to pull the recording of the phone call from my cell phone! This leaseholder was very brazen and rude and didn't need to provide me with the information she did unless she stood to gain from it. If she just wanted to deny me access she could have said she had cattle out there and didn't want hunters out there and I would have respected that. When I informed her that the paid for hunting and sole access to an outfitter was not only unethical but illegal she changed her tune to advise that, oh i have cattle out there on all 30 quarters... I said oh then the outfitter can't hunt out their either then I guess. She replied with, I own the land I can do whatever I want. I re assured her that she was a caretaker of the land and actually I and all other Albertans owned that land. I advised i would be reporting her and thanked her for her time. I intend to follow through to see that something is done about it. I don't need to hunt on her 20 quarters but the outfitter should not be allowed either and paid for access is an offense. For the record the other leaseholders I have contacted in the area have been fantastic to deal with.

[stringer]

Originally Posted by albertadeer

This is the attitude we DONT need... we need to work with leaseholders to find a compromise. Not try to over run them cause you feel you should hunt there.


Greed is terrible, and mosr leaseholders are just looking out for greedy people.

I'm not sure about the other stories but I've NEVER heard of a leaseholder giving permission just to "outfitters"

That sounds like the same old song and dance as usual from the Anti-outfitting group. I guess anti leaseholder too...

Where did I tell anyone to run over the lease holder.
I just stated a fact.
Just because you have never heard of lease holders only giving outfitters permission dose not mean it doesn't happen.
I can asure you it happens on a regular bases..
Sounds like the same old song and dance from people who spend their life with their head in the sand.

[stringer]

Originally Posted by abhunter8

Hi there. If you don't think this is true, I can give you all the details, could even get telus to pull the recording of the phone call from my cell phone! This leaseholder was very brazen and rude and didn't need to provide me with the information she did unless she stood to gain from it. If she just wanted to deny me access she could have said she had cattle out there and didn't want hunters out there and I would have respected that. When I informed her that the paid for hunting and sole access to an outfitter was not only unethical but illegal she changed her tune to advise that, oh i have cattle out there on all 30 quarters... I said oh then the outfitter can't hunt out their either then I guess. She replied with, I own the land I can do whatever I want. I re assured her that she was a caretaker of the land and actually I and all other Albertans owned that land. I advised i would be reporting her and thanked her for her time. I intend to follow through to see that something is done about it. I don't need to hunt on her 20 quarters but the outfitter should not be allowed either and paid for access is an offense. For the record the other leaseholders I have contacted in the area have been fantastic to deal with.

Do everything through email
Contact report a poacher and let them know what you believe is happening..
Contact the settlement officer for the area and file a complaint
Send cc to ESRD fish and wildlife enforcement,your MLA,the ministers office,and lastly the premiers office.
That will make it impossible for anyone to try a sweep it under the rug.

[Deer Hunter]

Originally Posted by stringer

Your wasting you time talking with the settlement officer as they are in bed with the lease holders in their areas. Contact the ministers office,I would suggest using email as it leaves a paper trail of your conversation.Works every time. Also send a cc to the premiers office.

I will try this next time. As you stated, the settlement officer route is a complete run around based on my actual experience.

[albertadeer]

Originally Posted by stringer

Where did I tell anyone to run over the lease holder.
I just stated a fact.
Just because you have never heard of lease holders only giving outfitters permission dose not mean it doesn't happen.
I can asure you it happens on a regular bases..
Sounds like the same old song and dance from people who spend their life with their head in the sand.

I'm sure it happens.

All I was saying is that each lease is unique, I'm sure it happens around the populated areas, or when a leaseholder doesn't even know that's not allowed.

i can assure you my head is far out of the sand, like I stated before. Both sides are correct. Some leases should be deemed private while others are obviously public land.

At least I don't let it get my undies in a bunch and scream foul play at every chance. You have to have some common decency to understand the issue at hand. It's OBVIOUS some lease holders abuse the lease rights. But it's much more obvious that the public abuses it much more! Spend anytime on a lease legally and you will see.

I've hunted and guided on about a dozen different leases. All with permission, never had an issue when a land owner said "no"

[albertadeer]

Originally Posted by Jordan Smith

I pretty much tuned out right there.

Cause you can't read?

Or just cause your ignorant....

[stringer]

Originally Posted by albertadeer

This is such a ridiculous subject. From what I've seen each lease is different. Many of the leases along saddle hills are small, 1/4- 1 section. And I belive they should be treated like private land. I have also hunted and worked on leases by edmonton that were a few sections in size. And to treat those like private land is
A joke!

We had a family lease backing onto crown land, 1/2 section. My family always allowed anyone to hunt it. Though most people stayed away. We would hunt all season and maybe see 1 or 2 neighbours. Then the elk and (new albertans) showed up. This was a game changer. There is now a highway leading from a crownland pipeline onto the lease, down every cut line and every trail. You can't even walk 100m without a truck driving down the line.

My uncle tried putting locks on the gates to the pipeline and the right of way that ends in his lease. Within a week shot off... I've never seen so many disrespectful yahoos as hunting on leases. Rules need to be inforced and fines MUCH stiffer for trespassing on leases without right to access.

In case your not aware it is against the law to lock up an entrance to crown land.
The petty trespass act clearly omits crown land.
Seems to me the only one breaking the law here is your uncle.