Can those that have a grazing lease deny me access? - Page 6

ram crazy · #**151** 11-15-2016, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paskell

Out of the goodness of your heart you let 5 hunters per year on their land. What a saint. You are right that it's all about "who you are", how you act has nothing to do with anything. For you and all the other "lease managers" you management "skills" are neither wanted or needed. You are supposed to have some cows eat some grass which the people of AB out of the goodness of their heart allow you, nothing else. If the government were not so politicized they would step up to the plate and re claim the land for everyone. If too many people hunt an area it will regulate itself and hunters will go elsewhere - on their own - not because some would be cattle baron is managing them. Manage your cows only and do everyone a favor. The abuses I pointed out are real and is what happens when authority is granted to people who have no business what so ever having it and actually MAY believe they are managing the land in everyone's best interests. It doesn't get any worse than this.

I see gates locked and friends or relations hunting and camping on the lease while others if they can, walk in and pack game out on their back. Other more progressive lessee's have "managed" to keep some stock on through hunting season so they don't even need to deal with the people that can walk. I feel so sorry for the fellow that has to have his stock off by Nov.1, maybe when it's renewed he will get no on/off dates and then he can be happy, no more pesky Albertans to deal with.

Grazing allotments work just fine and leases should be patterned after them. No matter how poorly the government manages its better than a dictator riding herd over us peons.

I can see why you have issues gain permission!

hal53 · #**152** 11-15-2016, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ram crazy

I can see why you have issues gain permission!

CanadianEh · #**153** 11-15-2016, 06:04 PM

Figured I would take a shot at this post.. my comments are in RED

- He PAID for access to that land you DIDN'T. He has MONEY and TIME invested in improving that land, you DO NOT. Ranchers do not pay for Access, the lease payment they make, is for the rights to have cows eat grass, period. All additions to the land, fencing, dugouts, etc.. are for the benefit of the rancher & cattle, not the land or Province of Alberta whom owns it. It is no different than a tenant in a house painting a wall red to suit their needs.

With all that most lease holders would have no issue with hunters on their lease if it weren't for the rutted up roads and cut fences that result. I wish this was true in all cases, but many of them have the Idea that THEY OWN the land, which they do not. And give preferential access to Friends and Family. This situation alone is BY FAR the thng that makes me the most angry.

I find it unbelieveable that so many think they have a God given right to all lease land. You don't.
You have no more rights then I and 35 nillion other Canadians do.
We do not all agree that you should have unfettered access to that land,and our vote counts as much as yours does. It has nothing to do with "God given rights" it has to do with the fact that the land is OWNED by the province of Alberta, of which we are kind of like all shareholders.

When will people get it. What you have CAN be taken away.
If you insist on taking away the incentives for grazing, ranchers WILL find another way to feed their cattle and it WILL require just as much land and it WILL NOT BE OPEN TO HUNTING under any cercumstances.

Keep pushing and you WILL bring an end to grazing leases. and you WILL be the BIG LOSER because those grazing leases will become deeded land to somebody and you will be shut out. Everyone will be shut out. There is little to no chance that grazing leases will ever be converted to deeded land. ( it does happen but not very often) There is a very specific set of rules which apply to the re designation of grazing lease, which opens that sale process to everyone who wants to make an offer. there is no way those pieces of land would be affordable in the massive sections of land they are currently in. Ranchers would have just as much to lose in this scenario as well.

That is all I have to say on the matter. I fully expect that you will never get it until you've brought about an end to grazing leases and you find yourself shut out of this land you DEMAND access to. I am not sure if Demand is the correct wording. Should we as people of Alberta have Access? Yes! Should we have to jump through hoops to do so? I dont think so.. Do we need a better system in place that will allow access and respect ranchers rights? YES, YES WE DO!!!

Public means everybody, not just you and those who agree with you. Agree, Public means EVERYBODY... not just the leaseholder and their friends and family.

They say money talks, who do you think has more money invested in this dispute. Think about it.If you had to estimate, what would be the value of all of the lease land in Alberta? It would likely be Billions. Which easily means Alberta has more money invested. If someone has a 10 year lease on land for pennies, compared to what its true market value is and paying millions for it, do you feel that is a MAJOR investment? Even with the cost of things that only benefit the lease holder, like fencing, dugouts, gates etc.. ( which most of would be a tax write off anyways) the investment Is EXTREMELY small in comparison to having to buy the land outright from us Albertans.

In saying all that.. I personally have Respect for most ranchers and leaseholders. I have gained my access to land by helping those people do some work around their properties in my spare time, becasue I want to give back.

At the end of the day I believe most of us just feel that there NEEDS to be a better system than allowing the leaseholder to be the judge and authority of who is allowed on and when.

JohninAB · #**154** 11-15-2016, 06:13 PM

Leaseholder cannot use there are too many hunters on the lease to deny access.

lannie · #**155** 11-15-2016, 06:21 PM

I guarantee hunters loose access to thousands of acres of deeded land each year due to the attitudes of a small minority of people with city elbows.

Paskell · #**156** 11-15-2016, 06:33 PM

Hal and Ram - It isn't a matter of "me" gaining access to lease land, it's the FACT that no one except the lessee's friends and relatives can! or that a lessee keeps everyone except friends from accessing thousands of acre's of public land. Is that so hard to understand? It's outright discrimination just as a tin pot dictator runs a country.

Hal - "smiling" is not answering my question. It's obvious to me that you were only passing gas.

Paskell · #**157** 11-15-2016, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lannie

I guarantee hunters loose access to thousands of acres of deeded land each year due to the attitudes of a small minority of people with city elbows.

If this is true I completely support the land owner, he has the right to manage his land as he sees fit and it serves idiots right if they are booted.

JohninAB · #**158** 11-15-2016, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paskell

Hal and Ram - It isn't a matter of "me" gaining access to lease land, it's the FACT that no one except the lessee's friends and relatives can! or that a lessee keeps everyone except friends from accessing thousands of acre's of public land. Is that so hard to understand? It's outright discrimination just as a tin pot dictator runs a country.

Hal - "smiling" is not answering my question. It's obvious to me that you were only passing gas.

Take it to the lands manager. He will set the lease holder straight.

hal53 · #**159** 11-15-2016, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paskell

Hal and Ram - It isn't a matter of "me" gaining access to lease land, it's the FACT that no one except the lessee's friends and relatives can! or that a lessee keeps everyone except friends from accessing thousands of acre's of public land. Is that so hard to understand? It's outright discrimination just as a tin pot dictator runs a country.

Hal - "smiling" is not answering my question. It's obvious to me that you were only passing gas.

Believe me...I wasn't smiling at you.. or even bothering to make an attempt to answer your question...I was simply agreeing with Ram about the fact that it is very easy to see why some people have issues gaining access. As I said before, if you are having a problem with a leaseholder and you can prove that your concerns are correct, contact the settlement officer...it will be handled...

Paskell · #**160** 11-15-2016, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohninAB

Take it to the lands manager. He will set the lease holder straight.

Unfortunately this is not true. Every single thing that I have said is the result of formal appeals under the public lands act. Public lands appeals can only deal with the law and all I have said is LEGAL and endorsed by public lands. My hope is that more of the public will ignore all the propaganda and seriously look into the lease scam. They will be amazed and demand change. As I said at the start I'm not even talking about surface rights disturbance or the ability to sell our land not just the improvements. The whole thing is so unjust.

Paskell · #**161** 11-15-2016, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hal53

Believe me...I wasn't smiling at you.. or even bothering to make an attempt to answer your question...I was simply agreeing with Ram about the fact that it is very easy to see why some people have issues gaining access. As I said before, if you are having a problem with a leaseholder and you can prove that your concerns are correct, contact the settlement officer...it will be handled...

If you can't explain a ridiculous remark consider keeping it to yourself. Settlement officers are powerless to address the issues I am raising.

JohninAB · #**162** 11-15-2016, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paskell

Unfortunately this is not true. Every single thing that I have said is the result of formal appeals under the public lands act. Public lands appeals can only deal with the law and all I have said is LEGAL and endorsed by public lands. My hope is that more of the public will ignore all the propaganda and seriously look into the lease scam. They will be amazed and demand change. As I said at the start I'm not even talking about surface rights disturbance or the ability to sell our land not just the improvements. The whole thing is so unjust.

Leaseholder cannot restrict access based on a number of hunters only allowed in their mind. Fact! Been there done that with the lands manager. Leasee even appealed the decision and lost.

As for your other comments, did not respond to them.

Have dealt with lease holders for years. Been round the block a few times with some.

Talking moose · #**163** 11-15-2016, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paskell

If you can't explain a ridiculous remark consider keeping it to yourself. Settlement officers are powerless to address the issues I am raising.

You the same guy that started the thread on addicts?

pikergolf · #**164** 11-15-2016, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohninAB

Leaseholder cannot restrict access based on a number of hunters only allowed in their mind. Fact! Been there done that with the lands manager. Leasee even appealed the decision and lost.

As for your other comments, did not respond to them.

Have dealt with lease holders for years. Been round the block a few times with some.

The Local Settlement Officer can though. This is off the Specific Access Conditions for this Disposition area of a Terms of use page for a lease in our area.

By Local Settlement Officer Order, one hunting party (with a maximum of 4 people) allowed on the lease at a time.

I'm sure this was by specific request of the lease holder.

Paskell · #**165** 11-15-2016, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pikergolf

The Local Settlement Officer can though. This is off the Specific Access Conditions for this Disposition area of a Terms of use page for a lease in our area.

By Local Settlement Officer Order, one hunting party (with a maximum of 4 people) allowed on the lease at a time.

I'm sure this was by specific request of the lease holder.

This restriction does not apply to the lease holder. What better way to keep the competition down and allow the lessee to pick and chose. The lessee can tell [request] the settlement officer to impose restrictions. The public has no say in any part of decision making because the act vests most of the rights of real property owners in the lessee. That's what gives them so much authority.

Paskell · #**166** 11-15-2016, 08:38 PM

As a further example a lease holder can have a restriction of "no motor driven vehicles allowed". This seems quite clear but the lessee is not bound by this condition. One lease I am aware of denies conventional vehicles access on a much traveled all weather road which cuts through a small corner of the lease. But at the same time he allows unlimited atv access to the entire lease which is decimating a trout stream and causing massive erosion in many places. This is entirely his choice and is supported by public lands.The reason: he thinks atver's would cut his fences if they were shut out. Just one more example of this ridiculous management of public land.

elkhunter220 · #**167** 11-15-2016, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pikergolf

The Local Settlement Officer can though. This is off the Specific Access Conditions for this Disposition area of a Terms of use page for a lease in our area.

By Local Settlement Officer Order, one hunting party (with a maximum of 4 people) allowed on the lease at a time.

I'm sure this was by specific request of the lease holder.

Take a read^^ JohninAB.

Paskell · #**168** 11-15-2016, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elkhunter220

Take a read^^ JohninAB.

This means that the lessee CAN restrict the number of people on his lease which are subject to notifying him to four, but at the same time allow a hundred of his friends, or as most often happens just give permission to friends. Sorry, all filled up! It's the same as allowing his friends to drive all over the lease but no one else. Or the same as keeping an animal or two on the lease to insure only he and friends will ever be able to hunt it, none of the public.

For those who don't believe many of the thing I have said I challenge you to do some inquires [in writing] and see for yourself.

Talking moose · #**169** 11-15-2016, 09:36 PM

I wonder if outfitters ever make deals with lease holders to keep people out?......

ram crazy · #**170** 11-15-2016, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohninAB

Take it to the lands manager. He will set the lease holder straight.

Read post 150. Paskell has issues with land managers as well. He is a real piece of work

58thecat · #**171** 11-15-2016, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talking moose

I wonder if outfitters ever make deals with lease holders to keep people out?......

The pot got re-stirred.
Simmering....

Paskell · #**172** 11-16-2016, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ram crazy

Read post 150. Paskell has issues with land managers as well. He is a real piece of work

The "land managers" can only work within the law as I preveousley stated so it's not their fault everything is such a mess, it's the governments. In fact they are tasked with an impossible job and I feel sorry for them.

Do as I said and find out for yourself, hiding your head in the sand won't help the public regain their land.

ram crazy · #**173** 11-16-2016, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paskell

Do as I said and find out for yourself, hiding your head in the sand won't help the public regain their land.

I don't worry about petty shat like this, I just put on my big boy pants and try elsewhere!!

Paskell · #**174** 11-16-2016, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ram crazy

I don't worry about petty shat like this, I just put on my big boy pants and try elsewhere!!

That attitude appears to be prevalent with many people today. Unfortunately it allows the dictators to keep taking more and more.

Redfrog · #**175** 11-16-2016, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paskell

That attitude appears to be prevalent with many people today. Unfortunately it allows the dictators to keep taking more and more.

What's next? A rally for the Trump's not my president crowd to have "bitch and stitch".

I'm wondering if it wasn't those selfish disrespectful lease holders who are hauling their old tV's computers and furniture up into the 'wilderness' around Calgary for target practice? You know those places that AO members post pics of over and over.

Won't be long now.

antlerguy · #**176** 11-16-2016, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paskell

This means that the lessee CAN restrict the number of people on his lease which are subject to notifying him to four, but at the same time allow a hundred of his friends, or as most often happens just give permission to friends. Sorry, all filled up! It's the same as allowing his friends to drive all over the lease but no one else. Or the same as keeping an animal or two on the lease to insure only he and friends will ever be able to hunt it, none of the public.

For those who don't believe many of the thing I have said I challenge you to do some inquires [in writing] and see for yourself.

According to you lease managers are useless. Most of us seem to get along fine with lease holders. In that case maybe talk to your MLA (gov) who are really making the rules. In the end rules are rules even if you don't agree. I'm not sure if you are trying to get support on here to change the rules or just complaining. If your really that concerned pull your big girl patties up, put down your purse and contact the right people. Enough with bashing folks who are doing things within the law.

Johnnyg313 · #**177** 11-16-2016, 09:15 PM

Ooooooo this is getting good!!!! Somebody is going to start crying soon.....lol. Couple more weeks and this'll be put to bed till next fall.

Paskell · #**178** 11-16-2016, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by antlerguy

According to you lease managers are useless. Most of us seem to get along fine with lease holders. In that case maybe talk to your MLA (gov) who are really making the rules. In the end rules are rules even if you don't agree. I'm not sure if you are trying to get support on here to change the rules or just complaining. If your really that concerned pull your big girl patties up, put down your purse and contact the right people. Enough with bashing folks who are doing things within the law.

I'm bashing the regulators not the people who have the hopeless task of enforcing absurd regulations as I have made clear previously. If you are happy with the way many lessee's are abusing the public thats fine with me, I'm not and once the public knows how badly they have been taken they won't either.

For your information the rules were made in 2003 when Sparrows attempt to sell off public lease land failed miserably. He did the next best thing in his mind which is the mess we have today. And he's still winning....so far.

"big girl patties" ? Entertaining post if nothing else.

antlerguy · #**179** 11-16-2016, 09:42 PM

So I guess you are just trying to gather support. Don't go to who can really deal with your concerns, but instead rant on a forum. Did the leaseholders break the law or do you just not agree with the law. If you don't agre with it, like stated take it up with those in charge. If a law is broken report it to the authorities.

Rangifer · #**180** 11-17-2016, 06:25 AM

Has anyone else been denied access and tried to resolve it by going up the chain?