Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Hunting Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 11-25-2013, 11:02 AM
waterfowler1969 waterfowler1969 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 512
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by albertadave View Post
And that's the thing, you shouldn't have to just because it's a pain to have to deal with the renter. It's really too bad, these renters definately should be kept on a tighter leash, and held to the same standard that those wishing to access these lands are expected to.
Bingo !!!! You are right on the money. There should be no double standards for lease holders.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 11-25-2013, 11:03 AM
Sneeze Sneeze is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,197
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer View Post
These entitled city folks don't differentiate between Special Areas grazing leases and leases in the rest of the province.
Ahh those special area's.... A tax payer bailout (purchase) of failed farms.

Those "entitled" city folks had nothing to do with paying that bill. [/sarc]

With these kind of attitudes from its residents - I wonder how open they will be to doing it again the next time mother nature turns the place into a dust bowl.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 11-25-2013, 11:08 AM
DCse7en DCse7en is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 397
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by albertadave View Post
And that's the thing, you shouldn't have to, just because it's a pain to have to deal with the renter. It's really too bad, these renters definately should be kept on a tighter leash, and held to the same standard that those wishing to access these lands are expected to.
Lease holders do have the right to protect their investment. They may not own the land, but they own the fences and gates, and SOME folks think that because the land is leased, they have a right to cut fences and ruin gates to suit their needs while accessing the leases. Asking permission to access leased land has never been a problem for me, and I have never been denied. That being said, the lease holder/outfitter above should not be allowed to deny acces to the leases to satisfy his outfitting opportunity, that is simply not fair, and I am sure that the process will work out for people wishing to access the leases in question. It is good to question this for sure.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 11-25-2013, 11:10 AM
lannie lannie is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: CNP
Posts: 3,752
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by albertadave View Post
If one of these RENTERS wants to play games like that (ducking calls, dropping emails, etc.), then leave a voicemail, send an email, or whatever the stipulation, STATING (not asking) that you WILL be accessing such and such land, on such and such date. Leave it at that, let them contact you if they have a problem. I'd like to see one of these spoiled, self-entitled renters (not grouping all lease-holders together here, just the one's abusing their PRIVILEGE) try and push a tresspassing charge, especially if all the requirements have been met by the accessor.
I would bet that no "renter" would waste their time trying to push a trespassing charge. What it will do is bolster their argument about access with the SRD when conflicts arise. So someone tries to gain permission or access- what ever you want to call it and the "legal tenant" is a jerk and says no for some weak reason. I would expect that when the person tried to get on the land fairly he left his name. If he just trespasses or what ever you would like to call it later on and the "renter" is aware of it and goes to the SRD after that the guy who wanted access would put him self in a bad position and again paint everybody trying to access in a bad light. The folks at the SRD deal with the lease holders or "renters" day in and day out and they want to simplify their duties. Figure out which way things are going to flow. USe the SRD to your advantage, don't be a pain in their behind because it is going to back fire fast and hard on you. Unfortunately the Guy from the SRD has to live in the same community as the "renter" in most cases. You think he is going to give much time to some dude from Calgary who starts running off his mouth about rancher using his land?
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 11-25-2013, 11:14 AM
albertadave albertadave is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,909
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DCse7en View Post
Lease holders do have the right to protect their investment. They may not own the land, but they own the fences and gates, and SOME folks think that because the land is leased, they have a right to cut fences and ruin gates to suit their needs while accessing the leases. Asking permission to access leased land has never been a problem for me, and I have never been denied. That being said, the lease holder/outfitter above should not be allowed to deny acces to the leases to satisfy his outfitting opportunity, that is simply not fair, and I am sure that the process will work out for people wishing to access the leases in question. It is good to question this for sure.
The guy that would cut a fence on a lease would likely cut the same fence on private land. Slobs like that probably wouldn't bother asking for permission anyway, so I don't see the relevance. I agree with everything else you've said. And I have had issues in the past when calling leaseholders for access.
__________________
Never say "Whoa" in a mud hole.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 11-25-2013, 11:15 AM
waterfowler1969 waterfowler1969 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 512
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DCse7en View Post
Lease holders do have the right to protect their investment. They may not own the land, but they own the fences and gates, and SOME folks think that because the land is leased, they have a right to cut fences and ruin gates to suit their needs while accessing the leases. Asking permission to access leased land has never been a problem for me, and I have never been denied. That being said, the lease holder/outfitter above should not be allowed to deny acces to the leases to satisfy his outfitting opportunity, that is simply not fair, and I am sure that the process will work out for people wishing to access the leases in question. It is good to question this for sure.
They don't own any part of it. In the agreement they Have to maintain all fences and the land. Don't get that mixed up.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 11-25-2013, 11:16 AM
lannie lannie is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: CNP
Posts: 3,752
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by waterfowler1969 View Post
They don't own any part of it. In the agreement they Have to maintain all fences and the land. Don't get that mixed up.
When they sell those leases I promise you they get paid for those fences and all other improvements.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 11-25-2013, 11:18 AM
albertadave albertadave is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,909
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lannie View Post
I would bet that no "renter" would waste their time trying to push a trespassing charge. What it will do is bolster their argument about access with the SRD when conflicts arise. So someone tries to gain permission or access- what ever you want to call it and the "legal tenant" is a jerk and says no for some weak reason. I would expect that when the person tried to get on the land fairly he left his name. If he just trespasses or what ever you would like to call it later on and the "renter" is aware of it and goes to the SRD after that the guy who wanted access would put him self in a bad position and again paint everybody trying to access in a bad light. The folks at the SRD deal with the lease holders or "renters" day in and day out and they want to simplify their duties. Figure out which way things are going to flow. USe the SRD to your advantage, don't be a pain in their behind because it is going to back fire fast and hard on you. Unfortunately the Guy from the SRD has to live in the same community as the "renter" in most cases. You think he is going to give much time to some dude from Calgary who starts running off his mouth about rancher using his land?
Again, the whole point is that a guy shouldn't have to go through all that hassle just to go hunting on land that he already has the right to access.
__________________
Never say "Whoa" in a mud hole.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 11-25-2013, 11:19 AM
J D J D is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 682
Default

The biggest issue I really see here is it legal for an outfitter to use a grazing lease as his personal guiding territory well keeping residents out. It is my understanding these leases are to graze cattle so this would be abuse of the system.

If it is not legal Alberta hunters should be pushing for the outfitters doing this to be held accountable. I would think the outfitter loosing the grazing lease would only be right. This way it could also be available to a rancher that is going to use it for its intended purpose.

I do understand why a rancher would not want hunters on the lease with cattle. I also agree it should be foot traffic only to prevent damage to the land. These are 2 things that hunters should respect in my opinion.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 11-25-2013, 11:19 AM
muzzy muzzy is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: St. Albert, AB
Posts: 1,178
Default

Everyones talking about cattle what if the leasor has several horses on a bush leased qtr Can I access
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 11-25-2013, 11:23 AM
lannie lannie is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: CNP
Posts: 3,752
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by muzzy View Post
Everyones talking about cattle what if the leasor has several horses on a bush leased qtr Can I access
Horses, sheep and cattle are the same.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 11-25-2013, 11:26 AM
hillbillyreefer's Avatar
hillbillyreefer hillbillyreefer is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,672
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sneeze View Post
Ahh those special area's.... A tax payer bailout (purchase) of failed farms.

Those "entitled" city folks had nothing to do with paying that bill. [/sarc]

With these kind of attitudes from its residents - I wonder how open they will be to doing it again the next time mother nature turns the place into a dust bowl.
You don't really have any clue of how things went down back in the 30s do you?

Agricultural practices have changed a bit in the last 80 years. Entitled city folks really should educate themselves.
__________________
Upset a Lefty, Fly a Drone!

"I find it interesting that some folk will pay to use a range, use a golf course, use a garage bay but think landowners should have to give permission for free. Do these same people think hookers should be treated like landowners?" pitw
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 11-25-2013, 11:26 AM
Silverado04's Avatar
Silverado04 Silverado04 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: AB
Posts: 329
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by muzzy View Post
Everyones talking about cattle what if the leasor has several horses on a bush leased qtr Can I access
Term used is "livestock" and doesn't differentiate between cattle, horses, sheep, etc.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 11-25-2013, 11:27 AM
lannie lannie is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: CNP
Posts: 3,752
Default

There is a lot of talk on here about lease holders as arse holes.
They are out there.
Many people in the general public talk about poachers as hunters.
I still believe most are very good and some that are not got that way by some puke standing on his doorstep telling him how it is and ruining it for all.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 11-25-2013, 11:31 AM
DCse7en DCse7en is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 397
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by albertadave View Post
The guy that would cut a fence on a lease would likely cut the same fence on private land. Slobs like that probably wouldn't bother asking for permission anyway, so I don't see the relevance. I agree with everything else you've said. And I have had issues in the past when calling leaseholders for access.
You are right, they would probably cut the fences no matter what. I think for those people it is easier for them to make the choice if the land is leased as opposed to owned. I have seen damaged fences and gates on both private and leased land before. It is frustrating to say the least. As for difficulty getting access to leases, Some lease holders don't like to answer the phone.....the best is to find their home quarter, and go ask in person if possible. I have found this method to work the best.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 11-25-2013, 11:33 AM
DCse7en DCse7en is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 397
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by waterfowler1969 View Post
They don't own any part of it. In the agreement they Have to maintain all fences and the land. Don't get that mixed up.

Don't be silly...
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 11-25-2013, 11:34 AM
Silverado04's Avatar
Silverado04 Silverado04 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: AB
Posts: 329
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lannie View Post
There is a lot of talk on here about lease holders as arse holes.
They are out there.
Many people in the general public talk about poachers as hunters.
I still believe most are very good and some that are not got that way by some puke standing on his doorstep telling him how it is and ruining it for all.
Of course there are generalizations, but the fact remains that those guys exist, and it is worthwhile to discuss what to do about it.

I have had many lease-holders say yeah sure no problem. I've also had some lease-holders say no and damn near hang up on me as soon as I mention grazing lease. Ask why and get an earful of agitation. Just a couple months ago I was told "I'm just not letting people on, find another lease".

That is not even remotely acceptable.

Yeah, I'm not here to discuss the guys that let me on while following conditions of the access. Why? Because that's how that was supposed to happen. He was within his bounds, and so was I, there is no reason to give him some accolade or recognition for doing a great job, he did as he should of, as did I.


If I follow conditions, I am to be allowed access. Simple as that. It's kind of the entire point of the system.

Furthermore, people cutting fence and therefore I am not allowing people on, is not acceptable. It is not the leaseholder's authority to deny access based on previous behaviour of unknown parties.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 11-25-2013, 11:37 AM
OpenRange OpenRange is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Medicine Hat
Posts: 337
Default

Do these leaseholders not pay Alberta tax?? They absolutely do! Which means they in fact DO own the land just the same as any of you do. Think about it for a second... your family has been on the same homestead for 100 years, 3 generations of your ancestors came and settled that land and made a home and built a life. The land base is say 50% deeded and 50% lease. The lease acres aren't fenced out to differentiate which acres are which. To tell that man/woman he has no rights and you can just do as you see fit because you are technically a 50/50 partner with him is wrong! Look at it this way.You bought a lot in the city, built a house, pay property tax. That land is still owned by the city, they service it, you just bought the privelige to live there. If I were a city taxpayer does that mean I get to come have a bbq in your backyard, because, lets be honest here, I'm a city taxpayer too which means I have access to the city as well. If you think my point is apples to oranges then remember, a city can come and take your place to build a bridge or c-train station if need be, just the same as they can take leased acres from a leaseholder. Maybe show a little compassion for these families, and they are FAMILIES that have these acres, not just a title of "leaseholder". The only reason some big ranches have made it so far is because they protect and look after their home's and land, just the same as you look after your house and yard. If the door was just thrown open to everyone then we all know what happens, things get wrecked by the people that don't care who it hurts. All I ask is think before you speak, because you are talking about a families heritage and livelihood here, to just your divine RIGHT to hunt.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 11-25-2013, 11:42 AM
Silverado04's Avatar
Silverado04 Silverado04 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: AB
Posts: 329
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OpenRange View Post
Do these leaseholders not pay Alberta tax?? They absolutely do! Which means they in fact DO own the land just the same as any of you do. Think about it for a second... your family has been on the same homestead for 100 years, 3 generations of your ancestors came and settled that land and made a home and built a life. The land base is say 50% deeded and 50% lease. The lease acres aren't fenced out to differentiate which acres are which. To tell that man/woman he has no rights and you can just do as you see fit because you are technically a 50/50 partner with him is wrong! Look at it this way.You bought a lot in the city, built a house, pay property tax. That land is still owned by the city, they service it, you just bought the privelige to live there. If I were a city taxpayer does that mean I get to come have a bbq in your backyard, because, lets be honest here, I'm a city taxpayer too which means I have access to the city as well. If you think my point is apples to oranges then remember, a city can come and take your place to build a bridge or c-train station if need be, just the same as they can take leased acres from a leaseholder. Maybe show a little compassion for these families, and they are FAMILIES that have these acres, not just a title of "leaseholder". The only reason some big ranches have made it so far is because they protect and look after their home's and land, just the same as you look after your house and yard. If the door was just thrown open to everyone then we all know what happens, things get wrecked by the people that don't care who it hurts. All I ask is think before you speak, because you are talking about a families heritage and livelihood here, to just your divine RIGHT to hunt.
Regardless of how you view the compassionate treatment of the leaseholders, the law is clear. The lease holder holds a lease, not a title.

I'm not saying the lease-holder has no rights, he does. He has paid for the right to graze his livestock on said land. He has not, however, paid for the right to impose conditions of access beyond what is stipulated explicitly in the lease.

And as per your city example, even if that were the case. Law stipulates that you coming into my yard without permission or caveat is trespassing. However, the lease-holder is only allowed to refuse access again, under the conditions outlined in the lease. Apples to oranges friend.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 11-25-2013, 11:42 AM
lannie lannie is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: CNP
Posts: 3,752
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silverado04 View Post
Of course there are generalizations, but the fact remains that those guys exist, and it is worthwhile to discuss what to do about it.

I have had many lease-holders say yeah sure no problem. I've also had some lease-holders say no and damn near hang up on me as soon as I mention grazing lease. Ask why and get an earful of agitation. Just a couple months ago I was told "I'm just not letting people on, find another lease".

That is not even remotely acceptable.

Yeah, I'm not here to discuss the guys that let me on while following conditions of the access. Why? Because that's how that was supposed to happen. He was within his bounds, and so was I, there is no reason to give him some accolade or recognition for doing a great job, he did as he should of, as did I.


If I follow conditions, I am to be allowed access. Simple as that. It's kind of the entire point of the system.

Furthermore, people cutting fence and therefore I am not allowing people on, is not acceptable. It is not the leaseholder's authority to deny access based on previous behaviour of unknown parties.
So when you got the earful of agitation what did you do that turned the situation around that would be of benefit to the people here?
Reply With Quote
  #81  
Old 11-25-2013, 11:44 AM
Silverado04's Avatar
Silverado04 Silverado04 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: AB
Posts: 329
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lannie View Post
So when you got the earful of agitation what did you do that turned the situation around that would be of benefit to the people here?
Tried to inquire as to why I was being denied access in a reasonable manner only to be told explicitly that he was not allowing it and to find another lease.

I only wish I had gone straight to the SRD with it, but like a sap, I allowed that illegal behaviour to continue and said thank you, have a good day.

There is no "turning the situation around to the benefit of everyone" when the lease-holder has no desire to even discuss the matter at hand. Good luck with that.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 11-25-2013, 11:45 AM
lannie lannie is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: CNP
Posts: 3,752
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OpenRange View Post
Do these leaseholders not pay Alberta tax?? They absolutely do! Which means they in fact DO own the land just the same as any of you do. Think about it for a second... your family has been on the same homestead for 100 years, 3 generations of your ancestors came and settled that land and made a home and built a life. The land base is say 50% deeded and 50% lease. The lease acres aren't fenced out to differentiate which acres are which. To tell that man/woman he has no rights and you can just do as you see fit because you are technically a 50/50 partner with him is wrong! Look at it this way.You bought a lot in the city, built a house, pay property tax. That land is still owned by the city, they service it, you just bought the privelige to live there. If I were a city taxpayer does that mean I get to come have a bbq in your backyard, because, lets be honest here, I'm a city taxpayer too which means I have access to the city as well. If you think my point is apples to oranges then remember, a city can come and take your place to build a bridge or c-train station if need be, just the same as they can take leased acres from a leaseholder. Maybe show a little compassion for these families, and they are FAMILIES that have these acres, not just a title of "leaseholder". The only reason some big ranches have made it so far is because they protect and look after their home's and land, just the same as you look after your house and yard. If the door was just thrown open to everyone then we all know what happens, things get wrecked by the people that don't care who it hurts. All I ask is think before you speak, because you are talking about a families heritage and livelihood here, to just your divine RIGHT to hunt.
I was not aware that there was a grazing lease in this province that did not need to be fenced separately. Learn something new every day.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 11-25-2013, 11:45 AM
hillbillyreefer's Avatar
hillbillyreefer hillbillyreefer is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,672
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silverado04 View Post
Of course there are generalizations, but the fact remains that those guys exist, and it is worthwhile to discuss what to do about it.

I have had many lease-holders say yeah sure no problem. I've also had some lease-holders say no and damn near hang up on me as soon as I mention grazing lease. Ask why and get an earful of agitation. Just a couple months ago I was told "I'm just not letting people on, find another lease".

That is not even remotely acceptable.

Yeah, I'm not here to discuss the guys that let me on while following conditions of the access. Why? Because that's how that was supposed to happen. He was within his bounds, and so was I, there is no reason to give him some accolade or recognition for doing a great job, he did as he should of, as did I.


If I follow conditions, I am to be allowed access. Simple as that. It's kind of the entire point of the system.

Furthermore, people cutting fence and therefore I am not allowing people on, is not acceptable. It is not the leaseholder's authority to deny access based on previous behaviour of unknown parties.
Yup just the leaseholders responsibility to repair the damages and clean up after the rightful owners trash the place. I guess we will make that a part of the costs that our city masters impose on their country serfs.
__________________
Upset a Lefty, Fly a Drone!

"I find it interesting that some folk will pay to use a range, use a golf course, use a garage bay but think landowners should have to give permission for free. Do these same people think hookers should be treated like landowners?" pitw
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 11-25-2013, 11:48 AM
Silverado04's Avatar
Silverado04 Silverado04 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: AB
Posts: 329
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer View Post
Yup just the leaseholders responsibility to repair the damages and clean up after the rightful owners trash the place. I guess we will make that a part of the costs that our city masters impose on their country serfs.
Part of the deal, you knew it when you signed up for it. The law is explicit in how this system works.

Don't like it, get your boots on the ground in edmonton and work to make it change.

Your city/country dichotomy disgusts me, and is far more damaging and generalizing than anything in this thread. Tough to stand that ignorant divisive garbage.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 11-25-2013, 11:48 AM
DCse7en DCse7en is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 397
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silverado04 View Post
Furthermore, people cutting fence and therefore I am not allowing people on, is not acceptable. It is not the leaseholder's authority to deny access based on previous behaviour of unknown parties.
Whether I am right or wrong legally, I am not sure, but if I were a lease holder and somebody had damaged my assets on a lease, I would make it as difficult as I could for recreational users to access the lease. Fixing fence sucks! Fixing ruts where they shouldn't be is even worse. The bottom line is both sides of this argument are bitter, we need to understand each other better. It is frustrating for me to hear people pop off on leaseholders when most are decent people who don't mind allowing access if the conditions are met. The guy who is outfitting on leases land while denying access to anyone else should be reprimanded for sure, but he is just part of a small group. I have been denied access over the phone, but never in person. Most lease holders are nice.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 11-25-2013, 11:49 AM
albertadave albertadave is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,909
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DCse7en View Post
You are right, they would probably cut the fences no matter what. I think for those people it is easier for them to make the choice if the land is leased as opposed to owned. I have seen damaged fences and gates on both private and leased land before. It is frustrating to say the least. As for difficulty getting access to leases, Some lease holders don't like to answer the phone.....the best is to find their home quarter, and go ask in person if possible. I have found this method to work the best.
I've done that too. Used to go through the same silly little dance with a particular lease holder every year. I'd show up, we'd have a little small talk, I'd "ask" for permission, he'd hum and haw, roll his eyes a bit, and then reluctantly "grant" us permission, with a number of clauses and stipulations, of course (things like "you can only shoot does, no bucks", or "you can only hunt with so-and-so, but not such-and-such, I don't like him"), never mentioned that he didn't want his fences cut, or his cattle stampeded, not that we would do those things anyway. Then a few years ago he bought a dozer, and knocked down every tree on the whole lease (total BS, they shouldn't be allowed to do that either, but that's another rant, so I won't go there today) so there's not much point trying to hunt there anymore. At least now I don't have to have that akward, painful conversation with every year. lol
__________________
Never say "Whoa" in a mud hole.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 11-25-2013, 11:51 AM
Silverado04's Avatar
Silverado04 Silverado04 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: AB
Posts: 329
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DCse7en View Post
Whether I am right or wrong legally, I am not sure, but if I were a lease holder and somebody had damaged my assets on a lease, I would make it as difficult as I could for recreational users to access the lease. Fixing fence sucks! Fixing ruts where they shouldn't be is even worse. The bottom line is both sides of this argument are bitter, we need to understand each other better. It is frustrating for me to hear people pop off on leaseholders when most are decent people who don't mind allowing access if the conditions are met. The guy who is outfitting on leases land while denying access to anyone else should be reprimanded for sure, but he is just part of a small group. I have been denied access over the phone, but never in person. Most lease holders are nice.
Right, and I'm not defending the people that do cut fence, but I abhor the attitude of making it as difficult as possible for recreational users to access. I sympathize that repairing fence sucks, but I am a responsible and law-abiding person, and to judge me and restrict me on the basis of others people's actions is unfair, unlawful, and will always be met with resistance, as I would expect from any reasonable person.

Just recall that people are "popping off" on the leaseholders that make it as difficult as possible for recreational users to access. Nobody is arguing that their aren't nice leaseholders out there. Discussion is occurring about that ones that aren't.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 11-25-2013, 11:52 AM
lannie lannie is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: CNP
Posts: 3,752
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silverado04 View Post
Tried to inquire as to why I was being denied access in a reasonable manner only to be told explicitly that he was not allowing it and to find another lease.

I only wish I had gone straight to the SRD with it, but like a sap, I allowed that illegal behaviour to continue and said thank you, have a good day.

There is no "turning the situation around to the benefit of everyone" when the lease-holder has no desire to even discuss the matter at hand. Good luck with that.
You should still go to SRD. Don't waste your breath with the leaseholder. Each complaint you make will benefit the people on here. Documentation is everything in these "disputes."
Have you ever sent an email to the leaseholder. When you phone someone you are at the mercy of their current mood. Maybe one of their cows just died or the one they are married to just wigged out on them? Emails do give time to reflect...
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 11-25-2013, 11:57 AM
lannie lannie is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: CNP
Posts: 3,752
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by albertadave View Post
I've done that too. Used to go through the same silly little dance with a particular lease holder every year. I'd show up, we'd have a little small talk, I'd "ask" for permission, he'd hum and haw, roll his eyes a bit, and then reluctantly "grant" us permission, with a number of clauses and stipulations, of course (things like "you can only shoot does, no bucks", or "you can only hunt with so-and-so, but not such-and-such, I don't like him"), never mentioned that he didn't want his fences cut, or his cattle stampeded, not that we would do those things anyway. Then a few years ago he bought a dozer, and knocked down every tree on the whole lease (total BS, they shouldn't be allowed to do that either, but that's another rant, so I won't go there today) so there's not much point trying to hunt there anymore. At least now I don't have to have that akward, painful conversation with every year. lol
He is not allowed to touch a tree so again contact SRD, they will deal with it.
You are asking for access, not hunting regs. Can't say what gender you shoot.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 11-25-2013, 11:57 AM
hillbillyreefer's Avatar
hillbillyreefer hillbillyreefer is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,672
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silverado04 View Post
Part of the deal, you knew it when you signed up for it. The law is explicit in how this system works.

Don't like it, get your boots on the ground in edmonton and work to make it change.

Your city/country dichotomy disgusts me, and is far more damaging and generalizing than anything in this thread. Tough to stand that ignorant divisive garbage.
Part of the deal was I'm a steward of the lease, it is not my job to clean up after you, or fix damages that you did to my property(the fence). If you don't like my country/city dichotomy by all means quit reading it and stay in the city.
__________________
Upset a Lefty, Fly a Drone!

"I find it interesting that some folk will pay to use a range, use a golf course, use a garage bay but think landowners should have to give permission for free. Do these same people think hookers should be treated like landowners?" pitw
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.