Grazing lease misuse ?

[Donkey Oatey]

The biggest problem is that grazing leases can be "sold" to another person. Once money comes in to play for "buying" a lease there is a sense of ownership and entitlement. Biggest mistake the government made was allowing leaseholders to sell the improvements on the lease to the next guy and not capping those improvements to actual dollars spent but allowed a free market on "selling" a lease.

Guys that have "bought" these leases, and in some cases paid huge dollars, feel they "own" them as a tradeable commodity. I can't blame them. The government made it that way. Too bad the rules are not strictly enforced on both sides of the fence. Make the leaseholders follow the rules, no if ands buts or maybe's. And on the other token strict enforcement of rules for recreational use.

It is a damned shame how public land is being treated on both sides.

[mark-edmonton]

Originally Posted by OpenRange

The vast majority of lease land is located in area's no one really wants to live. Not many homes down in the Manyberries, Orion area. I imagine things are similar in the northern half of the province. All the lease land is probably tree covered and tough to access anyways. If I have no voice on who access's the land then that is bad news for EVERYONE! Hunters could come to expect most places that produce any sizeable deer to be shot out. I had a vehicle pull up on Saturday morning and 5 guys jump out of the truck to get permission. I ask what they have for tags and they say 5 mulie bucks and 3 does. Another truck pulls up a half hour later with 3 guys in it with 2 buck and 2 does tags. If I let all those guys on then there won't be hardly any quality deer left. I do that so that when YOU show up by yourself looking for a deer to put meat on YOUR table you actually have an opportunity to do that. But then I got 5 guys pi$$ing and moaning on here I told them no. I agree some landowners are *****holes but most just want to see things be sustainable. Some hunters just don't care because they get drawn once every 10 years for a tag, so who cares if there is anything left after they get theres, besides, they won't be back for another 10 years anyways! I let about 3-4 bucks get shot and about that same amount in does because that is what is sustainable, SRD does nothing to make sure deer numbers are even everywhere so there is always fair opportunity. That is why I only let people fill certain tags, it's not for my benefit, I get no financial incentive to do this, but I sure get the flak!

Well I see your point, you seem to feel that you have the right to pick and choose who hunts and who doesn't. Me and my son show up with 2 tags each and you say no cause you want single hunters only by your example. Point is that we all have equal rights of access and you seem to be playing a role as a pretend co, telling hunters what they can and cannot shoot.

I am the op of this thread and my point was about leaseholders that blatantly misuse their lease rights. Ie the outfitter/ leaseholder in avonir, just north of LLB. I think we should adopt a system like sask has! Any provincial grazing lease must be cleared of livestock by oct 31 then free access to our public lands no contact required!

[lannie]

Originally Posted by Donkey Oatey

The biggest problem is that grazing leases can be "sold" to another person. Once money comes in to play for "buying" a lease there is a sense of ownership and entitlement. Biggest mistake the government made was allowing leaseholders to sell the improvements on the lease to the next guy and not capping those improvements to actual dollars spent but allowed a free market on "selling" a lease.

Guys that have "bought" these leases, and in some cases paid huge dollars, feel they "own" them as a tradeable commodity. I can't blame them. The government made it that way. Too bad the rules are not strictly enforced on both sides of the fence. Make the leaseholders follow the rules, no if ands buts or maybe's. And on the other token strict enforcement of rules for recreational use.

It is a damned shame how public land is being treated on both sides.

Granted the system has its flaws but it is the best way I can see. What would work better? If it does not have a free market value the system is doomed to failure. There are strict rules but they are hard to enforce just like every other rule or law inside or outside of that fence.

[OpenRange]

Originally Posted by mark-edmonton

Well I see your point, you seem to feel that you have the right to pick and choose who hunts and who doesn't. Me and my son show up with 2 tags each and you say no cause you want single hunters only by your example. Point is that we all have equal rights of access and you seem to be playing a role as a pretend co, telling hunters what they can and cannot shoot.

I am the op of this thread and my point was about leaseholders that blatantly misuse their lease rights. Ie the outfitter/ leaseholder in avonir, just north of LLB. I think we should adopt a system like sask has! Any provincial grazing lease must be cleared of livestock by oct 31 then free access to our public lands no contact required!

I don't opt for single hunters, if I have already given permission to a few other guys that season and they had 10 tags total then fine. I turned down the big group because I already had too many guys out there and too many deer harvested. If you showed up with your son with 4 tags at the beginning of the season it would be you that gets to hunt. In my WMU they only put out about 35 Mulie buck tags, if I let 10 guys come in with a total of 10 buck tags then they are taking about a third of the total tag numbers for an entire WMU out of one ranch. That is why I pick and choose. Nobody wants to see an entire population get destroyed.

[hillbillyreefer]

Originally Posted by OpenRange

I don't opt for single hunters, if I have already given permission to a few other guys that season and they had 10 tags total then fine. I turned down the big group because I already had too many guys out there and too many deer harvested. If you showed up with your son with 4 tags at the beginning of the season it would be you that gets to hunt. In my WMU they only put out about 35 Mulie buck tags, if I let 10 guys come in with a total of 10 buck tags then they are taking about a third of the total tag numbers for an entire WMU out of one ranch. That is why I pick and choose. Nobody wants to see an entire population get destroyed.

You have already allowed access to the property, fairly. Then when you tell the next guy no access allowed today he immediately starts whining about you saving the lease for you and your buddies, or you are guiding on it. It's been claimed on here a thousand times. Like I said the people wanting access don't know a thing about what really goes on around the ranch but they sure are experts if a nasty old landowner says no access today.

[Silverado04]

Originally Posted by OpenRange

I don't opt for single hunters, if I have already given permission to a few other guys that season and they had 10 tags total then fine. I turned down the big group because I already had too many guys out there and too many deer harvested. If you showed up with your son with 4 tags at the beginning of the season it would be you that gets to hunt. In my WMU they only put out about 35 Mulie buck tags, if I let 10 guys come in with a total of 10 buck tags then they are taking about a third of the total tag numbers for an entire WMU out of one ranch. That is why I pick and choose. Nobody wants to see an entire population get destroyed.

Unless your lease stipulates only a certain number of people are to be access the land per day, then you do not have lawful authority to deny access just because there are more than you would like on any given day.

I agree with your conservational sentiment, but it is important for that distinction to be noted. It is not a decision that you have the authority to make and/or enforce.

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

You have already allowed access to the property, fairly. Then when you tell the next guy no access allowed today he immediately starts whining about you saving the lease for you and your buddies, or you are guiding on it. It's been claimed on here a thousand times. Like I said the people wanting access don't know a thing about what really goes on around the ranch but they sure are experts if a nasty old landowner says no access today.

Can the leaseholder limit the number of people who come on the land?


No, but the leaseholder can discuss the concern with the Local Settlement Officer who can limit the number of people who can come on the land. Also, in cases where there are a high number of recreational users accessing the leases, the leaseholder can ask that a recreational management plan be put in place. These plans could include restrictions on the number of people on the lease at one time.

Both completed recreational management plans and limits set by a Local Settlement Officer will be included with the contact information on the website. Call your local Lands office of Environment and Sustainable Resource Development for more detail.

[Sneeze]

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

You have already allowed access to the property, fairly. Then when you tell the next guy no access allowed today he immediately starts whining about you saving the lease for you and your buddies, or you are guiding on it. It's been claimed on here a thousand times. Like I said the people wanting access don't know a thing about what really goes on around the ranch but they sure are experts if a nasty old landowner says no access today.

You are still not getting it.

It is not private property. Respect is earned not given - there is no requirement for a recreation user of crown land to show the guy running cows on that same land any more respect than that steward shows him.

You are within your rights to tell a guy "no access allowed today".... but its probably meaningless - remember it isn't private property. If the recreational user is following all the access conditions - he can tell you to fly a kite.

The recreational user doesn't care about your cows. Nor should he have to. You are both using the same piece of land for different things and neither party has the right to act as if he is the owner or that his need is greater than other users of the same land.

Just for clarity sake: Lease land is not YOUR ranch. You are renting the west room in the community hall - you don't get to control who walks in the door. When other start crashing your party - get upset. Until then keep your bouncer away from the front door.

[DCse7en]

Originally Posted by pikergolf

Can the leaseholder limit the number of people who come on the land?


No, but the leaseholder can discuss the concern with the Local Settlement Officer who can limit the number of people who can come on the land. Also, in cases where there are a high number of recreational users accessing the leases, the leaseholder can ask that a recreational management plan be put in place. These plans could include restrictions on the number of people on the lease at one time.

Both completed recreational management plans and limits set by a Local Settlement Officer will be included with the contact information on the website. Call your local Lands office of Environment and Sustainable Resource Development for more detail.

I agree with this. The process should be followed. The same with dispute resolution when access is denied. Seems that there are some misguided folks out there.

[DCse7en]

Originally Posted by Sneeze

The recreational user doesn't care about your cows. Nor should he have to.

Wow.... What is it that we think farmers do in this day and age?? They are feeding our nation for goodness sakes! We should care about the cows, and the grains, because no matter what, we still need to eat!! I can't believe someone would make such a statement!

[Sneeze]

Originally Posted by OpenRange

If you showed up with your son with 4 tags at the beginning of the season it would be you that gets to hunt. In my WMU they only put out about 35 Mulie buck tags, if I let 10 guys come in with a total of 10 buck tags then they are taking about a third of the total tag numbers for an entire WMU out of one ranch. That is why I pick and choose. Nobody wants to see an entire population get destroyed.

Ahh - a great example of a lease holder not following the rules.

Are you a qualified biologist?

Any experience in evaluating the overall health of a specific species population in your area?

Any experience, training or knowledge on range, seasonal movements or fertility / survival rates on mule deer populations in your area?

Who are you to appoint yourself Supreme Wildlife Leader on that public land?

You have no right, experience, credentials or sanctioning to do such a thing and your behavior is a slap in the face to the tax paying sportsman of Alberta.

And once again - lease land is not part of "Your Ranch". Man you guys have entitled attitudes.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by pikergolf

Can the leaseholder limit the number of people who come on the land?


No, but the leaseholder can discuss the concern with the Local Settlement Officer who can limit the number of people who can come on the land. Also, in cases where there are a high number of recreational users accessing the leases, the leaseholder can ask that a recreational management plan be put in place. These plans could include restrictions on the number of people on the lease at one time.

Both completed recreational management plans and limits set by a Local Settlement Officer will be included with the contact information on the website. Call your local Lands office of Environment and Sustainable Resource Development for more detail.

Do you believe that the Settlement Officer will agree that the leaseholder should have the right to allow only the outfitter's clients, while denying everyone else?

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Do you believe that the Settlement Officer will agree that the leaseholder should have the right to allow only the outfitter's clients, while denying everyone else?

Absolutely not, at least he shouldn't, the piece I posted was a direct quote off of the SDR Recreation on Agriculture Public Land page. I would hope that the intent and spirit of the rules would be followed. I have only seen one lease where the Settlement officer made such a ruling and in my opinion it was justified.

[hillbillyreefer]

Originally Posted by Sneeze

You are still not getting it.

It is not private property. Respect is earned not given - there is no requirement for a recreation user of crown land to show the guy running cows on that same land any more respect than that steward shows him.

You are within your rights to tell a guy "no access allowed today".... but its probably meaningless - remember it isn't private property. If the recreational user is following all the access conditions - he can tell you to fly a kite.

The recreational user doesn't care about your cows. Nor should he have to. You are both using the same piece of land for different things and neither party has the right to act as if he is the owner or that his need is greater than other users of the same land.

Just for clarity sake: Lease land is not YOUR ranch. You are renting the west room in the community hall - you don't get to control who walks in the door. When other start crashing your party - get upset. Until then keep your bouncer away from the front door.

I'm pretty sure access can be denied if animals are present. Ranchers don't care about your recreation either. How's that for showing you respect.

For clarity sake I have a lease from you for the next 20yrs on that land. I'll run cows on it and I'll also include it as part of my ranch until such time as that lease expires and isn't renewed. I'll run cows on it when and how I see fit. If you don't like that have my lease revoked. As for recreational access you may have that one small chunk of barren grass, but your access to 25 times that much deeded land will be severly restricted. Yup I'm taking my ball and going home.

[OpenRange]

Originally Posted by Sneeze

Ahh - a great example of a lease holder not following the rules.

Are you a qualified biologist?

Any experience in evaluating the overall health of a specific species population in your area?

Any experience, training or knowledge on range, seasonal movements or fertility / survival rates on mule deer populations in your area?

Who are you to appoint yourself Supreme Wildlife Leader on that public land?

You have no right, experience, credentials or sanctioning to do such a thing and your behavior is a slap in the face to the tax paying sportsman of Alberta.

And once again - lease land is not part of "Your Ranch". Man you guys have entitled attitudes.

I guess my Habitat Stewardship plaque hanging on the gate FROM the Government of Alberta isn't enough. The PFRA, SRD they all contact ME in the spring asking for range reports, water reports among other things. I tell them every year if the numbers of certain wildlife species are up or down. I don't need to be a biologist to figure that out. I see the fawn's running around every year, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to determine if I feel there are more or less then the previous year. The SRD has never, and I mean never set foot on my lease land because they don't need to. They won't just drop the number of tags because I say my place has fewer deer, they just hope hunters go elsewhere, unfortunately that isn't the case, therefore I restrict access. It's just simpler for the government that way. The SRD wants to see a robust and healthy deer herd as well as healthy grass and other wildlife species. They will always side with me on those issue versus YOU coming in and killing all the deer and driving all over the place like YOU own it! Because lets be honest here, most hunters DON'T treat the lease land with respect because you don't feel you need to.

[OpenRange]

Originally Posted by bignixs

Pretty sure you have to run cows on it within the terms of the lease you signed and agreed to not the way you see fit. Which means limited time that cows can be on that lease and you have to give access to the recreational users when the cows are off.

You can of course refuse access to your private land anytime you want, though I suspect if you are trying to stop Albertans from accessing their land that you lease, then it is highly unlikely that you were ever going to let them on your private land.

The government just gives a certain number of AUM's for pretty much all lease land south of Red Deer. I can rest my lease land from March till November and then throw cows in there. I can reduce my cow numbers and graze it year round if the AUM guidelines are followed. It is different in the northern half of the province with those grazing permit properties, they need to be out by a certain date. The only lease land in the south that follows those rules are primarily grazing coop's/assoc.

[Sneeze]

Originally Posted by OpenRange

They will always side with me on those issue versus YOU coming in and killing all the deer and driving all over the place like YOU own it! Because lets be honest here, most hunters DON'T treat the lease land with respect because you don't feel you need to.

Yes... its ME that's coming in and killing all the deer and driving all over the place with no respect?

Thanks for proving my points.

I treat all land with respect - not because some guy who runs cows where I am demands that I do. But because I want sustainable access and hunting opportunities for the generations after me.

Your cattle turn the lease into the surface of the moon - and I am the big bad deer murdering polluting fence cutting environmental catastrophe because I don't think I should have to beg at your feet to enjoy recreational access to Alberta's public lands.

I think we actually have more in common than you think. Respect is a two way street. Lease holders need to give up this idea that they have "first right" to Alberta's public land and all other users and their needs come 2nd. Hunters & sportsman need to give up the idea that public land means 4 x 4 free for all.

I have said it before - all this conflict does is enhance the cause for paid hunting. Those "city" guys hillbilly loves to condemn - regardless of your opinion on them, need a place to hunt. If they can't find it by saying please they will find it with their wallets. That will be a sad day, but do not say I didn't warn you.

[jawa]

in the north u can under permit winter graze or pasture horses and in so doing restrict acess to hunters druring hunting season and to be honest from some of what I have read some people have a lot to learn about respect both hunters and farmmers . One comment I will make anyone who dosnt respect a farmer or his cattle and put that before there big hunt is an a******* try farming long hard cold hours for less than minimum wage give your head a shake attitudes like ive seen in this forum are what disgusts people and turns them off hunting and hunters. how about getting over it put on your big boy panties and do some actual hunting instead of just looking for some place you can drive around with the rest of the flock.

[hillbillyreefer]

Originally Posted by bignixs

Pretty sure you have to run cows on it within the terms of the lease you signed and agreed to not the way you see fit. Which means limited time that cows can be on that lease and you have to give access to the recreational users when the cows are off.

You can of course refuse access to your private land anytime you want, though I suspect if you are trying to stop Albertans from accessing their land that you lease, then it is highly unlikely that you were ever going to let them on your private land.

Yup, I follow what it says in my lease. My cows may be on it as I post this. There is no time or date restrictions on my lease just aum which I haven't used up yet this year. There are several on here that know what kind of landowner I'am that's good enough for me.

[dsopkow]

Originally Posted by OpenRange

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.

Your point isn't arguable. In fact, you sound very uneducated on the matter.

Yes, I do own the land that I bought in the City. Check at Alberta Land Registries if you choose to disagree. I bet you'll find that it says I own it and that it also comes with a legal property report which identifies the extent of my property limits, with actual legal surveyed pins in the the ground. Come on buddy. Are you for real?

And yes, I do own the utilities that are located on my property. You clearly have no understanding of ownership and how the land development process and utility servicing works within a city with developed infrastructure.

My taxes go towards public improvements (i.e. the public streets, parks, utilities, treamtment, community programs, etc.) The taxes I pay do not go towards anything located within my provate land. My own hard earned money goes into that. Teh same as yours for your septic field/tank, ground water retrieval system, etc.

And, the City cannot come and take my land. It all gets refuted in the court system as a Land Expropriation. Often, it's just easier to settle for a money pay out.

If you choose not to demark your property limits, yes, you will get tresspassers who don't know any better. But guess what? You also get people who understand some of the simpler things of how this works and they don't tresspass.

Great, my family has a heritage as well that dates back to immigration, farmsteads, and living off the land. Guess what, not everyone has the opportunity to live out their life's aspirations.

I wonder if you even allow someone to walk up to your front door and ring the doorbell? Or, do you consider this tresspassing as well?

You have just illustrated a perfect example of what we are all talking about. A leaseholder who thinks they have every responsibility to manage and protect their lease as if it were there own private land. It's actually very quite simple to understand. The Crown owns the land of which you have entered into a leasing contract with to which you must meet certain terms for maintaining the lease. The same goes me, I abide by the terms set out by the Crown for recreational access and away I go! And, I will more than likely inform you if the fence has been damaged, or if others have dissobeyed the terms, or pick up garbage/litter, because, GUESS WHAT? I'm not a DB from the City. I'm a self respecting, family orientated individual who simply has a passion for the outdoors and enjoys what the world has to offer.

[harv3589]

I can show u a lease that hunters have shown no respect for...this is just this year;

1. someone cut the gate to get in to get an animal they shot vs dragging it out. The gate is chained so u don't drive in on the oil lease road.

2. another hunter was too lazy to drag his deer the final 100 yards to the road and drove his vehicle down the fence line, slide into the new fence destroying it.

3. right now there is another hunting group who actually set up camp with a travel trailer and made a heck of a mess all over with bottles and whatever else garbage that i could see driving by.

This is on one lease....who we ask for permission and have been hunting on for the past 20 yrs...who else has asked to hunt there...no one ever.

Now hunters wonder why they are being denied....I would like to give a big thanks to those few losers that ruin it for us all. I don't blame lease holders for not wanting anyone on it....people now a days don't show any respect and have this sense of entitlement.

I am not a lease holder, just a hunter who respects others...

[pickrel pat]

Originally Posted by dsopkow

Your point isn't arguable. In fact, you sound very uneducated on the matter.

Yes, I do own the land that I bought in the City. Check at Alberta Land Registries if you choose to disagree. I bet you'll find that it says I own it and that it also comes with a legal property report which identifies the extent of my property limits, with actual legal surveyed pins in the the ground. Come on buddy. Are you for real?

And yes, I do own the utilities that are located on my property. You clearly have no understanding of ownership and how the land development process and utility servicing works within a city with developed infrastructure.

My taxes go towards public improvements (i.e. the public streets, parks, utilities, treamtment, community programs, etc.) The taxes I pay do not go towards anything located within my provate land. My own hard earned money goes into that. Teh same as yours for your septic field/tank, ground water retrieval system, etc.

And, the City cannot come and take my land. It all gets refuted in the court system as a Land Expropriation. Often, it's just easier to settle for a money pay out.

If you choose not to demark your property limits, yes, you will get tresspassers who don't know any better. But guess what? You also get people who understand some of the simpler things of how this works and they don't tresspass.

Great, my family has a heritage as well that dates back to immigration, farmsteads, and living off the land. Guess what, not everyone has the opportunity to live out their life's aspirations.

I wonder if you even allow someone to walk up to your front door and ring the doorbell? Or, do you consider this tresspassing as well?

You have just illustrated a perfect example of what we are all talking about. A leaseholder who thinks they have every responsibility to manage and protect their lease as if it were there own private land. It's actually very quite simple to understand. The Crown owns the land of which you have entered into a leasing contract with to which you must meet certain terms for maintaining the lease. The same goes me, I abide by the terms set out by the Crown for recreational access and away I go! And, I will more than likely inform you if the fence has been damaged, or if others have dissobeyed the terms, or pick up garbage/litter, because, GUESS WHAT? I'm not a DB from the City. I'm a self respecting, family orientated individual who simply has a passion for the outdoors and enjoys what the world has to offer.

X2. Well said. You should post more often.

[Ranch11]

Originally Posted by FCLightning

I hope these activities are not happening on grazing lease land. Unfortunately like everything else there is not enough monitoring by the gov't and some of the monitoring is suspect, but really it is a grazing lease, not a crop lease - please respect that.

My agreement allows me to develop up to 55% of the lease, no more. I can't farm it, but GRAZE it. I can cut trees, disc, break, seed and reseed forage if I have to, build a road, not hi grade gravel, but a road anyways, fence, put in dugouts, as long as it is 55%. I paid 110,00 for my 9 quarter lease, and she's worth probably 5x that much now, if not more. It's an investment.

[pickrel pat]

Originally Posted by Ranch11

My agreement allows me to develop up to 55% of the lease, no more. I can't farm it, but GRAZE it. I can cut trees, disc, break, seed and reseed forage if I have to, build a road, not hi grade gravel, but a road anyways, fence, put in dugouts, as long as it is 55%. I paid 110,00 for my 9 quarter lease, and she's worth probably 5x that much now, if not more. It's an investment.

Probably worth more than 55,000.00.

[YoungGun77]

Originally Posted by dsopkow

Your point isn't arguable. In fact, you sound very uneducated on the matter.

Yes, I do own the land that I bought in the City. Check at Alberta Land Registries if you choose to disagree. I bet you'll find that it says I own it and that it also comes with a legal property report which identifies the extent of my property limits, with actual legal surveyed pins in the the ground. Come on buddy. Are you for real?

And yes, I do own the utilities that are located on my property. You clearly have no understanding of ownership and how the land development process and utility servicing works within a city with developed infrastructure.

My taxes go towards public improvements (i.e. the public streets, parks, utilities, treamtment, community programs, etc.) The taxes I pay do not go towards anything located within my provate land. My own hard earned money goes into that. Teh same as yours for your septic field/tank, ground water retrieval system, etc.

And, the City cannot come and take my land. It all gets refuted in the court system as a Land Expropriation. Often, it's just easier to settle for a money pay out.

If you choose not to demark your property limits, yes, you will get tresspassers who don't know any better. But guess what? You also get people who understand some of the simpler things of how this works and they don't tresspass.

Great, my family has a heritage as well that dates back to immigration, farmsteads, and living off the land. Guess what, not everyone has the opportunity to live out their life's aspirations.

I wonder if you even allow someone to walk up to your front door and ring the doorbell? Or, do you consider this tresspassing as well?

You have just illustrated a perfect example of what we are all talking about. A leaseholder who thinks they have every responsibility to manage and protect their lease as if it were there own private land. It's actually very quite simple to understand. The Crown owns the land of which you have entered into a leasing contract with to which you must meet certain terms for maintaining the lease. The same goes me, I abide by the terms set out by the Crown for recreational access and away I go! And, I will more than likely inform you if the fence has been damaged, or if others have dissobeyed the terms, or pick up garbage/litter, because, GUESS WHAT? I'm not a DB from the City. I'm a self respecting, family orientated individual who simply has a passion for the outdoors and enjoys what the world has to offer.

X3

[abwtfanatic]

Originally Posted by dsopkow

Your point isn't arguable. In fact, you sound very uneducated on the matter.

Yes, I do own the land that I bought in the City. Check at Alberta Land Registries if you choose to disagree. I bet you'll find that it says I own it and that it also comes with a legal property report which identifies the extent of my property limits, with actual legal surveyed pins in the the ground. Come on buddy. Are you for real?

And yes, I do own the utilities that are located on my property. You clearly have no understanding of ownership and how the land development process and utility servicing works within a city with developed infrastructure.

My taxes go towards public improvements (i.e. the public streets, parks, utilities, treamtment, community programs, etc.) The taxes I pay do not go towards anything located within my provate land. My own hard earned money goes into that. Teh same as yours for your septic field/tank, ground water retrieval system, etc.

And, the City cannot come and take my land. It all gets refuted in the court system as a Land Expropriation. Often, it's just easier to settle for a money pay out.

If you choose not to demark your property limits, yes, you will get tresspassers who don't know any better. But guess what? You also get people who understand some of the simpler things of how this works and they don't tresspass.

Great, my family has a heritage as well that dates back to immigration, farmsteads, and living off the land. Guess what, not everyone has the opportunity to live out their life's aspirations.

I wonder if you even allow someone to walk up to your front door and ring the doorbell? Or, do you consider this tresspassing as well?

You have just illustrated a perfect example of what we are all talking about. A leaseholder who thinks they have every responsibility to manage and protect their lease as if it were there own private land. It's actually very quite simple to understand. The Crown owns the land of which you have entered into a leasing contract with to which you must meet certain terms for maintaining the lease. The same goes me, I abide by the terms set out by the Crown for recreational access and away I go! And, I will more than likely inform you if the fence has been damaged, or if others have dissobeyed the terms, or pick up garbage/litter, because, GUESS WHAT? I'm not a DB from the City. I'm a self respecting, family orientated individual who simply has a passion for the outdoors and enjoys what the world has to offer.

x4, I own my house and I also own a portion of all the crown lease land as well.

[hillbillyreefer]

http://www.municipalaffairs.alberta....A_3-Column.doc

If you read and comprehend this you will discover Special Areas lease is exempt from the provincial access rules.

[Ranch11]

Originally Posted by pickrel pat

Probably worth more than 55,000.00.

Ha, yeah I suppose!

[bobalong]

Originally Posted by harv3589

I can show u a lease that hunters have shown no respect for...this is just this year;

1. someone cut the gate to get in to get an animal they shot vs dragging it out. The gate is chained so u don't drive in on the oil lease road.

2. another hunter was too lazy to drag his deer the final 100 yards to the road and drove his vehicle down the fence line, slide into the new fence destroying it.

3. right now there is another hunting group who actually set up camp with a travel trailer and made a heck of a mess all over with bottles and whatever else garbage that i could see driving by.

This is on one lease....who we ask for permission and have been hunting on for the past 20 yrs...who else has asked to hunt there...no one ever.

Now hunters wonder why they are being denied....I would like to give a big thanks to those few losers that ruin it for us all. I don't blame lease holders for not wanting anyone on it....people now a days don't show any respect and have this sense of entitlement.

I am not a lease holder, just a hunter who respects others...

Examples like you have given have been stated on here over and over, but the "losers" you mentioned continue to grow by leaps and bounds. Just look at the posts on here over the last month trashing landowners.

With the number of idiots out there now, and the damage they are doing, I am surprised the lease holders have not lobbied to keep there cows/horses on the lease until November 30 every year. This may never happen, but if there are negotiations initiated with the government to review lease land access, and the examples of vandalism that the landowners will provide, you can almost guarantee that hunting access to lease land is going to decrease substantially.

Unfortunately the majority of hunters who still know what respect is, are going to be denied access as well.

[harv3589]

Originally Posted by bobalong

Examples like you have given have been stated on here over and over, but the "losers" you mentioned continue to grow by leaps and bounds. Just look at the posts on here over the last month trashing landowners.

With the number of idiots out there now, and the damage they are doing, I am surprised the lease holders have not lobbied to keep there cows/horses on the lease until November 30 every year. This may never happen, but if there are negotiations initiated with the government to review lease land access, and the examples of vandalism that the landowners will provide, you can almost guarantee that hunting access to lease land is going to decrease substantially.

Unfortunately the majority of hunters who still know what respect is, are going to be denied access as well.

As much as it would hurt my hunting opportunities i wish they could do that....people have no respect anymore and this sense of entitlement that needs to be stomped out. Got to love the new age way of thinking...or lack of it.