Can those that have a grazing lease deny me access?

[CanadianEh]

Originally Posted by fargineyesore

The idea of grazing leases was never to allow cattle on the least year round, but for the grazing season, then the land was to be available to public use after that.

Why can't you lease holders get it though your head that your Grazing Lease was not meant for you to have exclusive use and control of the land year round?

Originally Posted by KegRiver

Where did you hear that ?

I'm on the local ag society board and have been active in farming as a farm worker and farm family member for over sixty years.
But I've never read that in any publication or document I've ever seen nore heard it at any gathering of farmers or government representatives.

Close friends and family members tell me they have never read or heard this before either.

We would all like to know where we can read that for ourselves, if you don't mind.

This is located in the "Grazing Lease Stewardship Code of Practice" Directly from the Government of Alberta and Minister of sustainable resource management.

1C) As grazing is the principal tool for managing rangelands, agricultural grazing is the priority, BUT NOT EXCLUSIVE, Use of these lands

2A.) CODE OF PRACTICE
Grazing lease holders are required to apply sustainable grazing practices that flow from four key rangeland management principals.

• Principal #4.) Provide Effective Rest after Grazing.
  Grazing leaseholders MUST provide an effective rest period for rangeland vegitation. When moisture and growing conditions do not allow for normal root and leaf regrowth

here is a link to the document.
http://aep.alberta.ca/lands-forests/...-practice.aspx

[300backfire]

Fargineysore, calling you NDP supporter was a little harsh and I apologize. All I was saying regarding money was that I'm financially vested in that property and you are not. Let's all drop the self righteous crap and reverse the tables. How would you do it. Your a hunter, I bet you and your buddies would like to hunt without other hunting pressure. Your very own spot? In regards to other hunters. I'm not labelling everyone. We deal with partying teenagers in the summer, quaders in the summer, hunters in the fall and skidoos in the winter. All the above create greaf. But it's only hunters that demand access. Hunters as a rule are the only ones that respect, just keep up the respect and ask, not demand

[CanadianEh]

I am not sure why this situation ever got out of balance.

All hunters have been branded as absolutely nuts, and do nothing but damage property. Which we all know is NOT true. Select few ruin it for all of us good folks.

All Leaseholders are branded as Tyrants, whom hold the land ransom and allow access as they see fit. We all know this isnt always the case either. Several ruin it for all the the rest.

The interesting thing is that, the leaseowners or private land owners whom I have contacted and have access to their land, they actually LIKE having me there as a hunter, and more importantly a set of eyes to look out for the degenerate few. Then again, I clean up after myself, and do not damage things.

Regardless of the back and forth arguement... can we as a group try come up with positives and think of solutions which would be acceptable to BOTH parties??! There must be a balance that works for the majority of hunters and majority of leaseholders.

[CMichaud]

Originally Posted by CanadianEh

Regardless of the back and forth arguement... can we as a group try come up with positives and think of solutions which would be acceptable to BOTH parties??! There must be a balance that works for the majority of hunters and majority of leaseholders.

See post #57

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by CanadianEh

This is located in the "Grazing Lease Stewardship Code of Practice" Directly from the Government of Alberta and Minister of sustainable resource management.

1C) As grazing is the principal tool for managing rangelands, agricultural grazing is the priority, BUT NOT EXCLUSIVE, Use of these lands

2A.) CODE OF PRACTICE
Grazing lease holders are required to apply sustainable grazing practices that flow from four key rangeland management principals.

• Principal #4.) Provide Effective Rest after Grazing.
  Grazing leaseholders MUST provide an effective rest period for rangeland vegitation. When moisture and growing conditions do not allow for normal root and leaf regrowth

here is a link to the document.
http://aep.alberta.ca/lands-forests/...-practice.aspx

I am well aware of that document. It is a relatively recent addition to the subject, the result of hunters complaints.
That document was signed on December 14, 2007, grazing leases have existed since before 1968 when my dad and his neighbors applied for a grazing lease.
I was told they were first available in early 1940.

This whole public access thing was not an issue back then and not in the wording of lease agreements.

That all came about because too many hunters showed a total lack of respect for the lease holders investment, and that lead to ever more restricted access and eventually the issuance of the document you quote.

When my dad and his friends applied for a lease in 1968 it was understood that the lease was for grazing only but there was no specific wording as to when or for how long one could have livestock on such a lease.

There was very clear wording about what improvements could be done and that included a cabin for use by farm hands while tending to improvements and any livestock.

Back then many lease holders grazed their livestock on leases the whole growing season and took them home for the winter, not because that was in the lease agreement but because that was what worked best for them.

Adding the wording to lease agreements was done to appease hunters who had found their access blocked because they had disrespected and damaged the lease holders property and investment.

That is I believe what leads us to where we are now. It's not that all lease holders are selfish tyrants as some here like to suggest.
No doubt some are, every group has it's bad apples.

The problem is that too many hunters have become selfish tyrants. Of course there too it's not all. There are some that still show respect and they are out there hunting a lease while we type insults back and forth.

There was a time when most people would say please and thank you because it was the right thing to do.
Today many would say that they refuse to do so because they have rights and will not beg.

Courtesy is dead and gone.

[338Bluff]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

I am well aware of that document. It is a relatively recent addition to the subject, the result of hunters complaints.
That document was signed on December 14, 2007, grazing leases have existed since before 1968 when my dad and his neighbors applied for a grazing lease.
I was told they were first available in early 1940.

This whole public access thing was not an issue back then and not in the wording of lease agreements.

That all came about because too many hunters showed a total lack of respect for the lease holders investment, and that lead to ever more restricted access and eventually the issuance of the document you quote.

When my dad and his friends applied for a lease in 1968 it was understood that the lease was for grazing only but there was no specific wording as to when or for how long one could have livestock on such a lease.

There was very clear wording about what improvements could be done and that included a cabin for use by farm hands while tending to improvements and any livestock.

Back then many lease holders grazed their livestock on leases the whole growing season and took them home for the winter, not because that was in the lease agreement but because that was what worked best for them.

Adding the wording to lease agreements was done to appease hunters who had found their access blocked because they had disrespected and damaged the lease holders property and investment.

That is I believe what leads us to where we are now. It's not that all lease holders are selfish tyrants as some here like to suggest.
No doubt some are, every group has it's bad apples.

The problem is that too many hunters have become selfish tyrants. Of course there too it's not all. There are some that still show respect and they are out there hunting a lease while we type insults back and forth.

There was a time when most people would say please and thank you because it was the right thing to do.
Today many would say that they refuse to do so because they have rights and will not beg.

Courtesy is dead and gone.

I think the code of practice has more to do with the prospect of overgrazing during a drought.

I do agree with everything else you say. I've been quietly lining up access while this debate has been going on and I have yet to be refused. Most of the leases are wide open with no requirement for contact. The only restriction is foot access only. I've had one guy ask if I would stay away from the 1/4 immediately behind his yard, a jerk would probably push the issue but when they have 20 other lease 1/4's to access why would someone force it and become the guy who wrecks it for everyone else? All they are doing is feeding goon-fudd stereo type many rural folk have about hunters.

Anyone that can't live with that should stay home and argue with strangers on the internet or drive lease roads and complain that there are no deer.

Bad apples on both sides, but reality is there is plenty of access to go around. Too much self entitlement around here some days.

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by CMichaud

See post #57

Why?

[CanadianEh]

Just curious which one is actually correct here KegRiver?

You first say this when no evidence is provided,

Originally Posted by KegRiver

I've never read that in any publication or document I've ever seen nore heard it at any gathering of farmers or government representatives.

Close friends and family members tell me they have never read or heard this before either.

We would all like to know where we can read that for ourselves, if you don't mind."

Then, once evidence is provided, and I point out exactly where it is written in documentation from the government of Alberta, Then you say

Originally Posted by KegRiver

I am well aware of that document.

The Grazing Lease Stewardship code of Practice has absolutely nothing to do with Hunters or recreation of any kind. It is a guideline and code to which Lease owners have to abide by a set of regulations set forth by the Alberta Government for proper use of Public Lands Grazing Lease. These regulations are in place to protect the LAND so Lease owners do not over graze, or ruin the land themselves... This document has nothing to do with, nor has any input from hunters.

Perhaps you should reread that document.


And on a side note..

Originally Posted by KegRiver

Today many would say that they refuse to do so because they have rights and will not beg.

Courtesy is dead and gone.

So we have to Beg for access? Your statement sure stinks of entitlement. Where is "your courtesy" in providing access, without having to make people kneel and beg for it first?

[Faststeel]

Originally Posted by Yycadm

As someone else has already pointed out, perhaps she HAS been contacted by others indicating their intention to hunt that area and she was trying to be a nice "mean lease holder" and save you a trip out there.
As someone else pointed out, those other hunters may be friends/family. Or not. Either way, she did not say you "could not" hunt, she gave you additional info to help make the decision of whether you wanted to hunt with competition or not.

Believe it or not, there are actually plenty of grazing leaseholders who are not hunters, have no hunters in their family or social group & are more than happy to have someone responsible, who is cognizant of the rules, go onto their lease and take game that otherwise if left alone are perceived to reduce the available grazing for their own domestic stock.

I have a couple of relatives in Saskatchewan who lease grazing land that fall into that category, although one is less interested in having hunters on the land, the other will point out the best spots on their lease to take game based on their own observations.

The one who's less interested has reason to be; land ripped up with quads & trucks, cattle wounded two years running, etc. however they are also well aware of the laws and their lease, and will not try to dissuade anyone from hunting the lease. They do ask that they be careful that what the hunters are shooting are in fact game and not cattle, which I think is only fair.

I also find it interesting at how many here are so quick to jump on lease holders; I'm either going to friendlier areas, or doing something different, because I've never had any issues.

Do you believe in the Easter bunny and the tooth ferry as well...

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by CanadianEh

Just curious which one is actually correct here KegRiver?

You first say this when no evidence is provided,



Then, once evidence is provided, and I point out exactly where it is written in documentation from the government of Alberta, Then you say



The Grazing Lease Stewardship code of Practice has absolutely nothing to do with Hunters or recreation of any kind. It is a guideline and code to which Lease owners have to abide by a set of regulations set forth by the Alberta Government for proper use of Public Lands Grazing Lease. These regulations are in place to protect the LAND so Lease owners do not over graze, or ruin the land themselves... This document has nothing to do with, nor has any input from hunters.

Perhaps you should reread that document.


And on a side note..


So we have to Beg for access? Your statement sure stinks of entitlement. Where is "your courtesy" in providing access, without having to make people kneel and beg for it first?

Where in that document does it say or suggest that it was the original intent of grazing leases to be available only during grazing season and that the original intent was for the land to then be available to anyone who wished.

That was the claim that I said I had not seen in any document.


I don't own any leases. I have never owned any leases.
I have to ask like everyone else and I have no problem with that because I understand what it means to develop a lease and manage a herd of cattle.

I even ask for access when that land belongs to my family members, like my my son-in-law. I don't call that begging but if you do that's your issue. And it'll close a lot of doors to you.

How you twist that into me feeling untitled is beyond comprehension.

Right now there is a fellow from Calgary hunting land I asked permission for him to hunt. That land belongs to my son-in-law and it's Mule Deer heaven.
That fellow is not my friend, yet, I've only spoken to him twice in my life. But I liked his attitude so I offered to ask on his behalf.

You need not ask, or beg for access to that land, access is denied.

[338Bluff]

Originally Posted by CanadianEh

Just curious which one is actually correct here KegRiver?

You first say this when no evidence is provided,



Then, once evidence is provided, and I point out exactly where it is written in documentation from the government of Alberta, Then you say



The Grazing Lease Stewardship code of Practice has absolutely nothing to do with Hunters or recreation of any kind. It is a guideline and code to which Lease owners have to abide by a set of regulations set forth by the Alberta Government for proper use of Public Lands Grazing Lease. These regulations are in place to protect the LAND so Lease owners do not over graze, or ruin the land themselves... This document has nothing to do with, nor has any input from hunters.

Perhaps you should reread that document.


And on a side note..


So we have to Beg for access? Your statement sure stinks of entitlement. Where is "your courtesy" in providing access, without having to make people kneel and beg for it first?

He never said that people should beg for access. I think it was more a reflection that some on here feel that they shouldn't have to ask and that to do so is the equivalent of begging. That is what stinks of entitlement.

Absolutely there have been some abuses of the grazing lease system but the broad brush stroke, stereotyping and finger pointing on this forum are laughably predictable.

Where I grew up you respected your neighbors and always called them before hunting on their deeded or lease land. After awhile they would take you aside and say you know what? Just go when you want too don't need to be pestering me all the time.

What is really sad is that some of these nit wits antagonize the wrong guys to the point that they shut down the deeded access as well.

[Faststeel]

Originally Posted by Talking moose

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

Never, that would be immoral and against the law.....LOL

[CanadianEh]

No need for access to your family's amazing mile deer heaven. . I have great relationships with many private land owners and grazing lease owners.

I was just pointing out the facts and defending someone who keg river jumped on.. , Of which kegriver clearly has not read that document by his own admission, then all of a sudden has and is very familiar with it.

Either he has read it and is misrepresenting the facts, or he hasn't and has no clear idea.

P. S. He did mention begging for land access. Not I

[Faststeel]

Originally Posted by elkhunter220

If a lease owner does not limit the amount of hunters allowed per day in many areas lease's would be far worse off than if they were managed properly by restricting the amount of people allowed.
This topic comes up every year and frustrates me when I hear people say you "tell the lease owner your are going" vs "asking for permission." Many leases these days have sign up dates which limits the amount of people per day (this number is set by a settlement officer). This is in the best interest of the public and lease owner to manage the property in my opinion. So when a hunter feels "entitled" to going on any lease at any time they wish to hunt, consider that when the lease holder says they are "booked" that you just missed the ball.
There never will be a perfect solution to this manner, but a little respect can go along ways for both sides.

I like this idea, but do 4 guys need access to 10,000 acres, there should be a limit yes but it needs to be in my opinion some what sensible...FS

[Faststeel]

Originally Posted by hal53

Sounds like you have n issue with one lease in particular, if that is the case you would be much further ahead by contacting the settlement officer, rather than posting your hatred of all lease holders in the province on an open forum, if any rules are being ignored.

seems like a nice friendly discussion, I don't read any "hatred" in his thoughts

[KegRiver]

You are right you have no idea who I am. And I do not lump you in with the likes of Pickton.

I actually believe you do have permission or could get permission from ordinary land owners. My guess is that you swallow your pride and pretend you are happy to ask when in fact it bugs the heck out of you.
And it shouldn't.

I had hoped to get you to think about the other guys prospective but I see you are too closed minded to think right now. Perhaps in time.

For now, trading insults proves nothing and serves no gainful purpose.

It's sad really, a little understanding can be good for both sides. One thing is sure, this confrontational approach is not working.

I'm walking away from this debate, you win. Or do you?

Is there any winner in this conflict or are we all losers?

[bb356]

Ban me ... Keg River you sir are a ... no ain't gonna go there ... take your sabre tooth beaver in High Level and your long winded story's which only circle back to you trying to cover your ineptitude to cover up that you ain't as smart as a drunkin fool like me as I sober up to prove that if I have I have a hit of acid while shooting some heroin is somehow going to babble forth and prove that when I get sober I will b able to .... holy carp... After reading back I only just came to realize that ... No wonder you ain't a moderator anymore !!!

[bb356]

Originally Posted by bb356

Ban me ... Keg River you sir are a ... no ain't gonna go there ... take your sabre tooth beaver in High Level and your long winded story's which only circle back to you trying to cover your ineptitude to cover up that you ain't as smart as a drunkin fool like me as I sober up to prove that if I have I have a hit of acid while shooting some heroin is somehow going to babble forth and prove that when I get sober I will b able to .... holy carp... After reading back I only just came to realize that ... No wonder you ain't a moderator anymore !!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MAGImtNa60

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by diamond k

Totally uncalled for and in very poor taste. True colours I guess

It was. I let him get to me and I know better, playing the insult game solves nothing.

I appoligize to the forum.

[johnschmidt]

I got access from people who are anti hunting, attitude goes a long way,fortunatley for me, I have a lot of very good neighbors, and we get along well, I help out with fencing and cattle work whenever I have some spare time, I also do mechanic work, it's been said before, but I'll say it again, grazing lease holders are livestock producers, ask them in the off season if you can do some predator control, they will judge by your respect of the land/fence, whether or not they will allow you back during big game season.

[fargineyesore]

Originally Posted by 300backfire

Fargineysore, calling you NDP supporter was a little harsh and I apologize. All I was saying regarding money was that I'm financially vested in that property and you are not. Let's all drop the self righteous crap and reverse the tables. How would you do it. Your a hunter, I bet you and your buddies would like to hunt without other hunting pressure. Your very own spot? In regards to other hunters. I'm not labelling everyone. We deal with partying teenagers in the summer, quaders in the summer, hunters in the fall and skidoos in the winter. All the above create greaf. But it's only hunters that demand access. Hunters as a rule are the only ones that respect, just keep up the respect and ask, not demand

No problem, we both hate the NDP.

[elkhunter220]

Originally Posted by fargineyesore

Well think about it, we have fall and winter in this country. Grazing is just that, eating grass. They are called Grazing Leases for a reason. If someone wants to use the land for something else, say haying or growing things, they need to get a different designation to the lease, such as a hay or cultivation permit. Why have these specific designation if you can just use the land for whatever you want, year round? If there is no grass to graze, why would livestock still be there? Cattle storage is not the purpose of a Grazing Lease.

Just ask a Public Lands Officer if Grazing Leases are meant to have cattle on them year-round.

You can keep your cattle on lease land throughout the fall and winter. All depends on the lease.

[fargineyesore]

Originally Posted by 338Bluff

I think the code of practice has more to do with the prospect of overgrazing during a drought.

I do agree with everything else you say. I've been quietly lining up access while this debate has been going on and I have yet to be refused. Most of the leases are wide open with no requirement for contact. The only restriction is foot access only. I've had one guy ask if I would stay away from the 1/4 immediately behind his yard, a jerk would probably push the issue but when they have 20 other lease 1/4's to access why would someone force it and become the guy who wrecks it for everyone else? All they are doing is feeding goon-fudd stereo type many rural folk have about hunters.

Anyone that can't live with that should stay home and argue with strangers on the internet or drive lease roads and complain that there are no deer.

Bad apples on both sides, but reality is there is plenty of access to go around. Too much self entitlement around here some days.

Read the original post again. The problem was the leaseholder, NOT the hunter.

[CMichaud]

From last year. Not sure if the government is still looking at upping the rates?



http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/albe...view-1.3151396

[338Bluff]

Originally Posted by fargineyesore

Read the original post again. The problem was the leaseholder, NOT the hunter.

The problem is never the hunter on AO lol! I read the original post. Guy asks leaseholder can I go? Leaseholds says some other guys are going maybe next time. Depending on context we don't know what that meant.

Techincally it is crown land and some on here will NEVER be happy until it is as wide open as the west country. Quad and random camp it to death.

Why would anyone wan't to show up on a lease knowing full well there could be another group of guys hunting there? Who I might add, asked first.

[fargineyesore]

Doesn't matter if there are people there or not. The OP asked about denying access. It's up to the hunter to decide if he wants to go anyway otherwise all any leaseholder has to do is say the same thing whether true or not.

[Random_randall]

Originally Posted by Mike_W

Someone is already hunting there is a common excuse used to drive people elsewhere usually because they have friends or family they would rather have hunt IMO.
When I call I am rather direct....."My name is Mike I am a hunter and I was just calling you to let you know I intend to access this certain lease on a certain day and my truck is a grey Chevy 2500"....I am not calling to ask for permission I am calling to let you know.

I like what you said mike, Just looking up info on grazing leases and found your comment! Polite and direct not much else to it!

[doof324]

Originally Posted by Random_randall

I like what you said mike, Just looking up info on grazing leases and found your comment! Polite and direct not much else to it!

Yah, no more Mr. Nice Guy!

[Salavee]

"Why are we not hearing our hunters advocacy groups like SCI and AFGA out trying to support hunters rights of access as opposed to the ranchers rights."

The above is a quote from an earlier post.

In 2015 there were 128,000 Resident hunting Licences sold. In addition, 303,212 Res Angling licences were sold in 2015

Current membership in AFGA is about 25,000.

Now, tell me that this shows adequate representation from a legitimately concerned user group that does quite a bit of griping about a whole lot of things. No wonder most proposals from those who are supposedly trying to represent us are either ignored or get watered down. Numbers talk. Get on the ball .. or quit griping from your keyboards and just let things happen.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

I am well aware of that document. It is a relatively recent addition to the subject, the result of hunters complaints.
That document was signed on December 14, 2007, grazing leases have existed since before 1968 when my dad and his neighbors applied for a grazing lease.
I was told they were first available in early 1940.

This whole public access thing was not an issue back then and not in the wording of lease agreements.

That all came about because too many hunters showed a total lack of respect for the lease holders investment, and that lead to ever more restricted access and eventually the issuance of the document you quote.

When my dad and his friends applied for a lease in 1968 it was understood that the lease was for grazing only but there was no specific wording as to when or for how long one could have livestock on such a lease.

There was very clear wording about what improvements could be done and that included a cabin for use by farm hands while tending to improvements and any livestock.

Back then many lease holders grazed their livestock on leases the whole growing season and took them home for the winter, not because that was in the lease agreement but because that was what worked best for them.

Adding the wording to lease agreements was done to appease hunters who had found their access blocked because they had disrespected and damaged the lease holders property and investment.

That is I believe what leads us to where we are now. It's not that all lease holders are selfish tyrants as some here like to suggest.
No doubt some are, every group has it's bad apples.

The problem is that too many hunters have become selfish tyrants. Of course there too it's not all. There are some that still show respect and they are out there hunting a lease while we type insults back and forth.

There was a time when most people would say please and thank you because it was the right thing to do.
Today many would say that they refuse to do so because they have rights and will not beg.

Courtesy is dead and gone.

Biased Ignorance lives.


The "Document" is a result of the legal case between O.H. Ranch Ltd. v. Patton [1996].

The Ranch believed that they had full control of access to grazing leases.
Patton believed otherwise.
The Courts agreed with Patton.

And thus the changes to the Lands Act, the creation of the Recreational Access Regulations and changes to the Occupiers's Liability Act.


Alberta citizens should commemorate a monument to Wade Patton.