What are your thoughts on grazing leases having no contact requirement in archery season

[foothillzman]

Originally Posted by chuck

Why should permission be required on public land?

it shouldn't, this is a clear answer

[Opa]

Originally Posted by chuck

I most certainly do. Now. Lease from a private landowner. And when that private landowner says I let on who I let on that is the end of the discussion. That land belongs to the crown and the crown has the right to stipulate access. End of story.

The lessee, not the landowner determines who can access the land, unless the stipulation that the landowner retains the right of determining access is written into the lease agreement when it was signed!! Even the owner is required to get permission to hunt on his own land.

[foothillzman]

Originally Posted by hal53

Just remember though guys, all hunters are supposed to stick together to help our sport...well... except for bowhunters....they're special....

no I'm a rifle hunter too, my **** smells real bad hahaha

we just won't get anywhere with rifle hunting on this subject, I've talked to many landowners who say the same, bullets scare them

[KegRiver]

a

[foothillzman]

Originally Posted by jaylow?

I don't go on lease land that has livestock on it , permission required or not. and I would prefer to talk to a guy just to make sure the fields are clear after a close call with a stallion the size of a bull moose I figure ill just hunt elsewhere

I agree, but after 10 yrs or so of playing games in SW Alberta, the phone doesn't work

[Dewey Cox]

Originally Posted by foothillzman

...if you don't like the rental agreement, don't rent it..period!

You are absolutely right.
And if someone is not providing reasonable access, that goes against the agreement.
But the agreement isn't for unlimited access by the public, that's why you need to check in.
And if you can't abide by that, find a different piece of land to hunt on..period!

[foothillzman]

Originally Posted by MountainTi

Wrong. During archery season, there is livestock present, and lease owners do not actually like guys sneaking around on leases. Good way to spook animals thru fences.

Permission should be necessary ALL TIMES of the year. Period

I've talked to many landowners who say archery is fine, bullets scare them

[foothillzman]

Originally Posted by ram crazy

I got ya, your sh!t don't stink, there are still incidents involving bow hunting. If you don't want to have to ask for permission hunt crown land.

there are, but most landowners are far less concerned with an arrow than a bullet

I rifle hunt, and prefer to because of how quickly it takes down game, I just don't think we will get anywhere trying to say no contact for rifle hunting

[foothillzman]

Originally Posted by Dewey Cox

Then it is also my own.
So on behalf of you, me, and everyone else, the government leased it to another guy to graze cattle on.
Do you not realize what lease means?

it is renting, as per below

from Webster's

a contract by which one conveys real estate, equipment, or facilities for a specified term and for a specified rent

[foothillzman]

Originally Posted by Dewey Cox

Absolutely.
But you do have to check with the leaseholder first.
If you don't want to do that, choose some land that doesn't have a lease on it.
I think we just solved this problem.
That wasn't too hard.
Good work.

hahah convenient eh for everyone but tax paying hunters

[foothillzman]

Originally Posted by hal53

..and the Crown (owner) of the land has agreed to lease the land with the understanding that it is crown land and the public will be able to access it except under some conditions that are mutually agreed upon in the lease agreement.

very informed response... thank-you

[foothillzman]

Originally Posted by chuck

Then why are we throwing the word permission around? Permission has nothing to do with this.

it shouldn't be hard, but leaseholders rarely return phone calls or emails, or they will come up with rules that aren't in the lease conditions

[foothillzman]

Originally Posted by purgatory.sv

Its land owned by the government that is being leased to a steward, if you are aware of this you should follow the protocol for access.

they don't call you back or refuse access the majority of the time

[foothillzman]

Originally Posted by Bulldog Edm

I mostly bow hunt but I do have rifles. I don't see the problem with having to contact the lease holder. As long as you abide by the rules he can not deny you access. The only difference is see between rifle hunting vs bowhunting that makes people more lenient towards bow hunters is that with bow hunting you have to be way closer to the animal leaving way less room for errors with people wounding or killing livestock. Our(bowhunters) s#!t still stinks. We just have to wipe a little better to be able to sneak up on the prey lol

thanks for your thoughtful post, I try to contact leaseholders, and never get responses in the SW of the province

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by Opa

The lessee, not the landowner determines who can access the land, unless the stipulation that the landowner retains the right of determining access is written into the lease agreement when it was signed!! Even the owner is required to get permission to hunt on his own land.

Horse feathers.

[Dewey Cox]

Originally Posted by foothillzman

hahah convenient eh for everyone but tax paying hunters

It would be rather inconvenient for the tax paying, and lease paying lease holder to have people showing up unannounced and chasing his cattle into the next county.
You want to treat land with a grazing lease the same as all other crown land. It's not the same. The difference is it has a grazing lease on it. (Seems pretty obvious, I know.)
There are legitimate reasons for the lease holder to turn you away. If you can't handle that, use some land that's not leased out.

[foothillzman]

Originally Posted by Dewey Cox

You are absolutely right.
And if someone is not providing reasonable access, that goes against the agreement.
But the agreement isn't for unlimited access by the public, that's why you need to check in.
And if you can't abide by that, find a different piece of land to hunt on..period!

great honest answer,

the issue is I would like the system to work like it is set out in the writing, but the problem is the acess is not happening, and we need a solution

the tax paying public should be allowed on this land, and we are not

[Dewey Cox]

Originally Posted by foothillzman

I would like the system to work like it is set out, the problem is the acess is not happening, and we need a solution

If someone is denying access without a real reason, that's wrong, and I don't think that should be happening.
But as long as people are paying for the leases, there can't be completely unlimited access.

[walking buffalo]

While I appreciate your enthusiasm, Foothillzman, this topic is more complex than just a Hunter issue. In order to achieve change, the vision needs to be broad.

IMO, without a question the Recreational Access system for Grazing leases is problematic. While most Leaseholders behave with good intention to satisfy the recreational access lease agreements, there are are growing number of cases where Leaseholders are not. In these cases, there is very little accountability to ensure that leaseholders follow the rules. There is a need to implement a new model for public access to public lands.

With increasing demand for recreational access, there is a heightened case that these public lands are not realizing a "best use" under the current system.

Why should cattle grazing be the dominant and even exclusionary use of these public lands when the demand for alternative uses is strong?

In many cases, alternative uses of these lands in conjunction with grazing, as opposed to exclusively cattle grazing, will offer our citizens a better "return" on the land than just grazing fees.


Hunting, fishing, camping, berry/mushroom picking are all valuable activities that support our economy.

In order to achieve a fuller social and economic return on our public lands, there is a need to alter the current imbalance on Public land use priorities.

[foothillzman]

Originally Posted by Dewey Cox

It would be rather inconvenient for the tax paying, and lease paying lease holder to have people showing up unannounced and chasing his cattle into the next county.
You want to treat land with a grazing lease the same as all other crown land. It's not the same. The difference is it has a grazing lease on it. (Seems pretty obvious, I know.)
There are legitimate reasons for the lease holder to turn you away. If you can't handle that, use some land that's not leased out.

again with the innuendos that this land is privately owned, its not, and the public has the right to use it

[foothillzman]

Originally Posted by Dewey Cox

If someone is denying access without a real reason, that's wrong, and I don't think that should be happening.
But as long as people are paying for the leases, there can't be completely unlimited access.

access is flat out being denied, I only know of a couple leaseholders who respond to calls and take it seriously that the public can't just be blown off

[purgatory.sv]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

a

yes

[purgatory.sv]

Originally Posted by foothillzman

they don't call you back or refuse access the majority of the time

Never a straight forward answer, this particular link was provided in another thread similar to this one, again its contains information but you have to work for it. If you have the patience contained in the archives of this forum an actual contact was provided to resolve access. But it’s buried and I must go.

http://aep.alberta.ca/lands-forests/...-practice.aspx

[foothillzman]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

While I appreciate your enthusiasm, Foothillzman, this topic is more complex than just a Hunter issue. In order to achieve change, the vision needs to be broad.

IMO, without a question the Recreational Access system for Grazing leases is problematic. While most Leaseholders behave with good intention to satisfy the recreational access lease agreements, there are are growing number of cases where Leaseholders are not. In these cases, there is very little accountability to ensure that leaseholders follow the rules. There is a need to implement a new model for public access to public lands.

With increasing demand for recreational access, there is a heightened case that these public lands are not realizing a "best use" under the current system.

Why should cattle grazing be the dominant and even exclusionary use of these public lands when the demand for alternative uses is strong?

In many cases, alternative uses of these lands in conjunction with grazing, as opposed to exclusively cattle grazing, will offer our citizens a better "return" on the land than just grazing fees.


Hunting, fishing, camping, berry/mushroom picking are all valuable activities that support our economy.

In order to achieve a fuller social and economic return on our public lands, there is a need to alter the current imbalance on Public land use priorities.

I always respect what you have to say Walking Buffalo.

What are your thoughts on how us as an Alberta Outdoor community can help make change?

I agree with you that the core issue is that access is being denied and that the only stakeholder being considered are cattle ranchers.

We just had a young daughter, and I would like to take her hiking (not hunting) on lands that have wildlife, and I find many of the best lands are in the foothills, which is where the very issue is. I didn't mention hiking and other rec activities because I thought I may be asking too much in this poll.

I am learning some things here. One being that there are many cattle stakeholders everywhere you turn. I was expecting this poll on a hunting forum to be skewed in the direction of access, but it is not.

I would like to try to help to make some changes so that our kids can see wildlife, and go hiking on crown lands. Some of the best ungulate habitat in the province is in the foothills where unfortunately the crown lands are not being made available to the public for use.

I find this very sad.

[Opa]

Originally Posted by foothillzman

access is flat out being denied, I only know of a couple leaseholders who respond to calls and take it seriously that the public can't just be blown off

Boo friggin hoo!!! Then why not access the leases where the leaseholder responds and forget about the rest? Only you city guys can carry on forever with all of the whining & crying over lease access. Who wants their livestock all revved up, garbage all over, and those granted access generally not abiding by the rules as set out by the leaseholder?

[foothillzman]

Originally Posted by Opa

Boo friggin hoo!!! Then why not access the leases where the leaseholder responds and forget about the rest? Only you city guys can carry on forever with all of the whining & crying over lease access. Who wants their livestock all revved up, garbage all over, and those granted access generally not abiding by the rules as set out by the leaseholder?

haha wow that is a generalization isn't it
I grew up in the country and my inlaws are from high river, wrong guy pal

we need a system where all Albertans can enjoy the lands

[ram crazy]

Originally Posted by foothillzman

haha wow that is a generalization isn't it
I grew up in the country and my inlaws are from high river, wrong guy pal

we need a system where all Albertans can enjoy the lands

You can enjoy the lands, go to the mountains. Oh wait a minute, the government is trying to screw that up too!!!

[foothillzman]

Originally Posted by ram crazy

You can enjoy the lands, go to the mountains. Oh wait a minute, the government is trying to screw that up too!!!

the mts are great for sure, the habitat isnt as good for wildlife though

[MK2750]

You guys that think farmers like bow hunters are not only wrong but the opposite is often true.

There is still plenty of grass left in bow season and the farmer does not want his cows stressed, he wants them eating.

Cows go missing, real or imagined some farmers have told me they don't trust strangers being tempted by a healthy beef walking by that can be taken without a sound.

Around here many bow hunters have gotten the reputation of poachers. The farmer would like to go moose or elk hunting but doesn't understand the bow hunting regs. He finds a gut pile of an animal he is not permitted to hunt and it bothers him.

As a grouse hunter and x-bow hunter, I have asked for permission literally thousands of times on bush quarters early in the season.

"Come back and see me in November when the cows are off and we all can go." is a very common response.

[foothillzman]

Originally Posted by MK2750

You guys that think farmers like bow hunters are not only wrong but the opposite is often true.

There is still plenty of grass left in bow season and the farmer does not want his cows stressed, he wants them eating.

Cows go missing, real or imagined some farmers have told me they don't trust strangers being tempted by a healthy beef walking by that can be taken without a sound.

Around here many bow hunters have gotten the reputation of poachers. The farmer would like to go moose or elk hunting but doesn't understand the bow hunting regs. He finds a gut pile of an animal he is not permitted to hunt and it bothers him.


As a grouse hunter and x-bow hunter, I have asked for permission literally thousands of times on bush quarters early in the season.

"Come back and see me in November when the cows are off and we all can go." is a very common response.

the farmer at least is open to talking, i havent had the experience of even having the opportunity to talk the majority of the time