Lease Land

[Dick284]

I still support 5-0 in his quest and I hope some sort of resolution can come out of it.
I also to some degree see where Willy is coming from.
If word gets out about hunters pushing and pushing what is to stop the Lease Holder form loopholing their way to maintinaing the access issue in their favor.
This issue is a by product of past and present alliences with large ranchers and the Provincial Government.
Henceforth the lease land issue is ambiguious at best and frought with cronieism and patronage.
Until such time as this pandering is put in check I see no good outcomes from further leasor/hunter relations.

[Pathfinder76]

If they cannot deny you reasonable access, why then can't you just walk on. It is my understanding from F&W that asking permission is really a formality. If they say no, let them know you're sorry they feel that way, and go anyway.

[FiveO]

Originally Posted by willy

I think five-0 came across to the landowner as he does on this post he probly caused most of the problem. Five-0 must have lotsa money to be able to afford the lease then do nothing with it.

Thanks for judging me Willy. I am a very responsible individual and your comments not needed. I always make time to talk with the local farmers and follow the rules. Like I said the land agent had the same results dealing with this guy.

Bottom lip over the top would be in order for yah

[FiveO]

Originally Posted by SteveY66

Five 0 did you get your cow?

Not yet. Thats why i had the problem with lease land. The Elk moved out of the area I like to hunt.

See what happens this afternoon and tomorrow I think I will spend most of the time scouting and hunt 3 days next week.

.

[Bull Shooter]

I am absolutely in favour of the public having reasonable access to grazing leases. In fact, a few months back, I had a thread that outlined what I thought might be a better plan in dealing with the “ownership” issues that we seem to encounter when trying to get access to these leases. Among others, Willy had some very good and constructive comments. As usual, the thread got hijacked and fell into oblivion.

With no disrespect to Five0, I think we were all very quick to jump on the bandwagon without knowing all the facts of the situation... myself included. However, this might not be as black and white as we would like to believe... and again, I am not blaming Five0.

As it appears my original question was unanswered, I will ask it again. Providing the leaseholder lawfully had livestock on the grazing lease, and if that grazing lease (13 quarters) was perimeter fenced (one block) would he be correct or vindicated in denying access to hunt that property? I would venture that the legal answer is yes. Again, I am taking some obvious liberties in my assumptions.

I’m thinking we need to pick our battles wisely. If the leaseholder has not broken the spirit or intent of the access agreement and is plagued with the wrath of unhappy hunters, I see little good coming out of the situation. Maybe the situation is exactly as Five0 has suggested and the leaseholder had every obligation to accommodate his request for access. Great, then I think it best that Five0 proceed with the report in a very logical and factual way (Five0 is representing our collective interests). But much of his credibility will be lost if he goes into a tirade about wanting to take over the lease and how cattle are bad for the environment. These are my thoughts. Regards, Mike

[nekred]

The whole point is two way respect.....

I agree with others who say stay away from offering to lease it yourself. File your complaint, ask for the review. If my Leaseholder still wants to create an issue then, keep pursuing. If there is a huge issue whne lease term is up guess who goes to bottom of priority list.

Some people are recommending to be arrogant about it and just go anyway.... That is against law as well as leaseholder is to be informed of people accessing. Two wrongs don't make a right.

having slept on this willy is right we do have only one side of the story....but accepting the facts of that story a wrong has been committed and resolution recommendations have been made.

Whenever ther is a land-use conflict bith sides of issue need to be looked at what are the leaseholders interests and concens regarding hunters, what are the hunter's interests and concerns regarding leaseholder's. and also look at possible ulterior motives.

Leaseholder:
Interests: The well being of their cattle. this means, free from loss (escape through fences being left open), Cattle being disturbed etc.
Potential Ulterior Motives for restricting access: They may be an outfitter or in cahoots with an outfitter, they may be a hunter themselves and want to dny access to others.....

Concern regarding hunter Access: Some hunters not aware of how to ensure cattle are not harmed, Gunshots riling and disturbing cattle, fences left open, the old shot cow story..... They have a lot of money invested that may be exposed to danger, even with access after cows are gone.... fences could be damaged etc.. Ruts all over place wetlands ripped up by 4x4...

Potential benefits to leaseholder: Predators, and competition for graze population lowered....

Hunter:
Interests: Access to land for hunting
Potential Ulterior motives: poaching, Rustling, irresponsible environmental damaging actions etc...

Concern's with leaseholder.... No access
Potential benefits to hunter.... access...

The leaseholder has a lot at stake... more risk.... that is why there is a procedure and protocol to help lower this potential risk to leaseholders.

Now if a leaseholder hunts the land themselves or is in cahoots with an outfitter or is an outfitter themselves then in my mind there is a conflict of interest. HMMMMMM......

If a person is a leaseholder..... and an outfitter/hunter then they cannot deny access or change conditions of access if they themselves are accessing the land. If they access with pickup to hunt/outfit.... so can ever other hunter... If the leaseholder allows access to outfitter with vehicle.... same goes for everyone....

I feel that a leaseholder should have to provide a schedule of planned use for the lease.... just like any forestry or oil and gas company has to. After all ranching/farming is also a business. this schedule should be posted and avialbel to all potential users. This could be a simple document that explains their planned grazing rotation and what areas will be abel to be accessed for hunting/fishing/quadding.... requested conditions... and be posted and reviewed before lease approval is granted.... just like any other business oriented stakeholder...... If some conditions are not acceptable such as foot access to the back 1/4 which is 6 miles in but has a useable trail...etc...
If there is more than one applicant for the lease the one wit the least restrictive conditions that would cause the least conflict would then be chosen.....

Unfortunately then this gets all tied up in bureacracy..... If hunters and leaseholders do not get along this will become the norm!..... After all that is what other businesses have to do to be able to use Crown resources...

[Waxy]

Originally Posted by Bull Shooter

Five0 - Respectfully, I think you are going in the wrong direction with this now and you are going to be very disappointed. Keep it simple, and report on the incident and your direct experience(s) only. I will almost guarantee (and I do not do that lightly) that you will get absolutely nowhere trying to change the land-use descriptions for grazing leases. I think your emotions are getting the best of you now... sleep on it for a bit. Regards, Mike

I gotta agree with BullShooter.

The old KISS theory is your best friend here in my opinion.

Go after him for what he's done wrong, complicating the issue with "envrinonmental" issues, veiled threats or the appearance of an ulterior motive will only harm your case.

Waxy

[rugatika]

If getting access to PUBLIC lease land is going to be such a hassle with lease holders finding loopholes etc just to deny access then maybe lurch is onto something.

Deny access to the leaseholders during hunting season. Sept 1 to Dec 31 it's no go for them. If they want to have cattle on they still can, but it just can't be used as a reason to deny access. I mean, come on, have any of us ever "accidentally" shot a cow?

Reminds me of a story. Mickey Mantle (I think it was Mickey) and some ball player friends of his were out hunting and they wanted to hunt some farmland. Mickey goes to the farmhouse to ask permission while his hunting buddies wait in the truck. The farmer says "Sure go ahead, but can you do me a favour and kill that old cow for me?" "No problem says Mickey."

Wanting to play a joke on his buddies he goes back to the truck and says "That damn old farmer told me we couln't hunt on his land. I'm gonna show him!" Mickey grabs his rifle and goes and shoots the cow that the farmer had asked him to kill. The next thing he knows his comrades are beside him with their rifles and they start shooting the other cows. "Damn right Mickey. We'll show him!"

Just a story I heard. Not sure if it's true or not.

[ram crazy]

I'm not sure but I think a lease holder can limit the number of people on the land at any given time as well. If you get into a ****ing match with the guy and word gets around to other locals around the area you may be denied there as well, so be careful how you want to go with this. When the government close an area people don't challenge them. Waiporus is a prime example, and I'm sure some of the people responsible for that part of the closure are hunters as well.

.

[Okotokian]

I've never read a lease so don't know what it contains, but perhaps the intent of leased land should change over time. Perhaps in the future what ranchers should be allowed to do is not lease land (with all the control that implies), but instead buy the right to have cattle on the land for a certain period of time (which I see as slightly different). Perhaps not be able to control or deny other LEGITIMATE uses of and access to the land.

[Reeves1]

I havent looked into lease land here in AB....
But a buddy of mine in B.C. has lease land. The rule is, no cattle on it till (I think) about mid May. Then nothing on it after (about) the end of Sept ? I do know there are no cattle on it during hunting season.

Why would this not work here ? If the land is needed through the winter season, maybe the farmer has too many cattle ? Being public land, would it not be needed for wildlife from late summer/early fall, for the grazing of Deer etc. ?

Anyway, in my way of thinking , the farmer should only be able to use public land to feed his cattle for a period of the summer.....

[Bull Shooter]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

I've never read a lease so don't know what it contains, but perhaps the intent of leased land should change over time. Perhaps in the future what ranchers should be allowed to do is not lease land (with all the control that implies), but instead buy the right to have cattle on the land for a certain period of time (which I see as slightly different). Perhaps not be able to control or deny other LEGITIMATE uses of and access to the land.

Oko, that is essentially what we have today. The leases are based on AUM's which suggests a maximum carrying capacity of the land per month. The leases can be, and are, very different for various conditions around Alberta. Further to the management of animals, the leaseholders are also charged as stewards of the land (to some degree) and are responsible for weed control, degradation, water management, etc. SRD provides an inspector that visits the lands, usually once a year, to ensure the conditions of the lease are being met. I think SRD has a pretty good link in regard to grazing leases and the responsibilities of leaseholders. It is definitely worth checking. Regards, Mike

[nekred]

BC and Alberta completely different rules for "leasing"

In Alberta you lease the land and have to be stewards as mentioned, there is more responsibility.... but also more control of access

In BC you pay so much a cow for or cow/calf pair to allow cattle access to an area but have no control for access etc. they are just another user. The government maintains cattleguards fences, riparian area protection etc....

[Redfrog]

Realtors??? any Realtors around??
It seems to me that a lot of us are ignorant about the lease process in Alberta.
Oh I understand what a lease is, but the rancher who has a grazing lease in Alberta may think he owns the land because he bought it
In my area lease land sells for about half the price of deeded. The gov't does not get any proceeds from the sale, the vendor does. Then the buyer pays a uearly lease fee [rent] to the gov't. He has a set of rules he must operate under, maximum number of what type of animals he can graze etc.
If there is oil or gas activity on the graze lease, the Rancher recives any monetary benefit for access etc.

So the rancher "bought" the lease land, pays for it yearly, benefits from having his stock on it, maintains fences etc., benefits from energy activity.

HMMMM? I wonder why he treats it as if he owns it??

OH yeah, Any realtors that can tell us when lease land was first sold along with deeded land?

There are several types of leases in Alberta and each comes with its own rules so it is important to know what type of lease you are talking about first. Take a look n the Public Lands web site and it's all explained there.

[Bull Shooter]

Originally Posted by Redfrog

Realtors??? any Realtors around??
It seems to me that a lot of us are ignorant about the lease process in Alberta.
Oh I understand what a lease is, but the rancher who has a grazing lease in Alberta may think he owns the land because he bought it
In my area lease land sells for about half the price of deeded. The gov't does not get any proceeds from the sale, the vendor does. Then the buyer pays a uearly lease fee [rent] to the gov't. He has a set of rules he must operate under, maximum number of what type of animals he can graze etc.
If there is oil or gas activity on the graze lease, the Rancher recives any monetary benefit for access etc.

So the rancher "bought" the lease land, pays for it yearly, benefits from having his stock on it, maintains fences etc., benefits from energy activity.

HMMMM? I wonder why he treats it as if he owns it??

OH yeah, Any realtors that can tell us when lease land was first sold along with deeded land?

Redfrog, here is a link to a thread I started that discusses your concerns. I think this goes to the crux of the issue:

http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=6054

Regards, Mike

[Redfrog]

Thanks B/S. I was away when that thread ran. Some good points made.

[LongDraw]

Redfrog,

What an individual pays for the lease outside what his yearly lease fee is has no bearing on this issue. There are responsibilities on both parties behalf. I have to obide by conditions set forth by the leaseholder, and the leaseholder has to obide by the act, it's pretty simple.

What is the difference if I just disregard his conditions, or if he disregards the act? We are both wrong.

[Bull Shooter]

Originally Posted by LongDraw

Redfrog,

What an individual pays for the lease outside what his yearly lease fee is has no bearing on this issue. There are responsibilities on both parties behalf. I have to obide by conditions set forth by the leaseholder, and the leaseholder has to obide by the act, it's pretty simple.

What is the difference if I just disregard his conditions, or if he disregards the act? We are both wrong.

LongDraw - In principle you are quite correct, but I would change the wording in your first sentence to "should have no bearing on this issue" from "has no bearing on this issue", because I honestly think it does. Regards, Mike

[ram crazy]

You have to look at the liability end of it as well. If you were out on leased land and got hurt the lease holder is liable. and once again they can limit the number of people on the land at any given time. Good luck to five-o on his fight but I think it's going to cost you a whole pile of money to get no where. You better brush up on your lease laws. And as far as lease holder getting money to repair fencing or put up fencing that is a farce, they get nothing from the gov.

[Redfrog]

Longbow, I offered an opinion on why the lessee treats the situation of access as if he owns the land. You are correct that both ends of the lease are covered by the act, however the lessee still "bought" the lease, and pays rent on it as well, so it is understandable that he feels it is his.

I'm not saying that it is right to buy the lease or refuse permission. I think access should be more readily available.

[BUD]

Originally Posted by Walleyes

See the problem you all have with this thing is you all think the lease holder actually owns any such said land,, but in fact he does not,, it is public land.. It can not be any plainer then that.. They have tried in the hunting regulations to distinguish the difference but they can not do it in plain English and they can not do it in such a way as to keep everyone happy... So.. Go hunt,, fish,, camp enjoy you're self on you're public land,, we all pay for it.. Its ours.. Enjoy...

There is a large chunk of public land in southern Alberta , pincher , and crowsnest area , called the WHALEBACK .
It is controlled but a couple of big ranches that their ole Grand Papa leased from the Govt for a song and a 2 bit piece back in the days of the six shooter.
Their so used to riding their ponys over this land , that they now believe that its actually their own property , much like the Copithorn family , and will fight a war to keep you and l ta hell off it , they know when they got a good thing , and they want to keep it that way.
The excuse they use to lock it up is this answer ,WE ARE THE CARETAKERS OF THIS LAND , if we let the City crew in it will be ruined forever , but in reality they just want it for themselves ,and their cows that do one hellava lot more damage to a creekbed than any hunter on foot.
The Elk numbers there are in the hundreds and on their Ranch houses are adorned with Antlers.

[willy]

What part of the whaleback are you having trouble getting access to we can walk or ride in to most parts of it. Think most is in the black creek wildland. Even had the 1 ranch hand offer to drag our elk out if we shot one.

Originally Posted by BUD

There is a large chunk of public land in southern Alberta , pincher , and crowsnest area , called the WHALEBACK .
It is controlled but a couple of big ranches that their ole Grand Papa leased from the Govt for a song and a 2 bit piece back in the days of the six shooter.
Their so used to riding their ponys over this land , that they now believe that its actually their own property , much like the Copithorn family , and will fight a war to keep you and l ta hell off it , they know when they got a good thing , and they want to keep it that way.
The excuse they use to lock it up is this answer ,WE ARE THE CARETAKERS OF THIS LAND , if we let the City crew in it will be ruined forever , but in reality they just want it for themselves ,and their cows that do one hellava lot more damage to a creekbed than any hunter on foot.
The Elk numbers there are in the hundreds and on their Ranch houses are adorned with Antlers.

Bud, you are sadly mis-informed. For one thing the whaleback is located north of Lundbreck. It starts just north of where the oldman river crosses hiway 22.
This is 308. I do a lot of hunting in 308. ANYONE has access to the Whaleback and area (A-7 ranch and Waldron ranch) without needing to ask for permission. The A-7 has a new manager and can't help you out as much as the last one as he doesn't have the equipment to do so. The Waldron manager helps most people get their game out if he isn't busy. all you have to do is ask.

[BUD]

Originally Posted by 700TI

Bud, you are sadly mis-informed. For one thing the whaleback is located north of Lundbreck. It starts just north of where the oldman river crosses hiway 22.
This is 308. I do a lot of hunting in 308. ANYONE has access to the Whaleback and area (A-7 ranch and Waldron ranch) without needing to ask for permission. The A-7 has a new manager and can't help you out as much as the last one as he doesn't have the equipment to do so. The Waldron manager helps most people get their game out if he isn't busy. all you have to do is ask.

N.W of PINCHER CREEK , and north of the Oldman river , a documentary was on tv , and that area ,NO ONE but the local Ranchers were allowed in for hunting , taking pictures of the flowers was ok tho , and of course the TV CREW for that particular documentary.

[willy]

There is some private property right along the river but most of it is open for hunting just no vehicles allowed into the whaleback area. Theres the bob creek wildland that has designated quad trails. Not sure where your talking about bud ?

Originally Posted by BUD

N.W of PINCHER CREEK , and north of the Oldman river , a documentary was on tv , and that area ,NO ONE but the local Ranchers were allowed in for hunting , taking pictures of the flowers was ok tho , and of course the TV CREW for that particular documentary.

Hi Bud,

What was the name of the show?

Bud, It sounds like you are going by second hand news. Have you ever been to 308? I have hunted that zone every year. Believe me, hunting is allowed on the Whaleback. Part of the Whaleback is in an ecological reserve, and hunting is even allowed in there.

Chevy, I will get the name of the documentary, as one of the fellows featured in the show is a fellow employee!!!!!