Expanding reasons for denying Grazing Lease access?

[thumper]

I note that on a Fish & Wildlife FaceBook Post the morning, for the first time I see 'livestock on *adjacent* pasture' - as a bonafide reason to deny hunter access to a Grazing Lease:

"The Recreational Access Regulation aims to provide recreational opportunities when the activity does not impact the land or the leaseholder’s use of the land. The leaseholder could deny recreational activities for various reasons, such as if there are livestock present in the field or an adjacent pasture, or a crop has not yet been harvested or there could be a fire ban in effect. If the leaseholder denies access outside the regulation, contact your local rangeland agrologist and so they can help facilitate a discussion to help both parties come to an agreement."

A property owner could keep an animal on their deeded land 12 months of the year, and deny all access to an adjacent grazing lease at all times forever?
Our rights to access public land are further eroded.

[walking buffalo]

Yes Thumper, this could be an upcoming issue to accessing Our Land.


This amendment to expand denial of access conditions was made by the NDP government in 2017.

I suspect that there are a few situations where this reason for denying hunting near adjacent livestock is reasonable, and I suspect that the ability for abuse by a leaseholder to be of much greater concern.

Rather than allowing blanket reasoning that this clause could be used in every case, the ability to deny hunting on a grazing lease next to a pasture with livestock should be determined by the leaseholder application in a management plan.


The legislation is rather ambiguous.
What is "unreasonable"?
Who gets to decide other than a judge?
Does this only apply to livestock in adjacent Grazing leases, or private land as well?


The legislation is here.
https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/laws/re....html#document

Duty to allow access

6(1) Where a person wishing to gain access for recreational purposes to land that is the subject of an agricultural disposition that is a grazing lease or a farm development lease to use the land complies with section 5, the agricultural disposition holder shall allow access to the agricultural disposition land unless one or more of the following circumstances exist:

(a) the proposed use would involve the use of one or more bicycles, animals for transportation or motor vehicles;

(b) the proposed use would occur

(i) in a fenced pasture unit where livestock are present in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agricultural disposition and the Act, or

(ii) on cultivated land on which a crop is growing or has not been completely harvested;

(c) a fire ban imposed by a competent authority under any law in force in Alberta is in effect in respect of all or part of the agricultural disposition land;

(d) the proposed use would involve hunting within the meaning of the Wildlife Act at a location that is unreasonably close to a fenced pasture in which livestock of the agricultural disposition holder are present in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agricultural disposition and the Act;

(d.1) the proposed use would involve the discharge of a firearm or use of an explosive at a location that is unreasonably close to a fenced pasture in which livestock of the agricultural disposition holder are present in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agricultural disposition and the Act;

(e) the proposed use is camping;

(f) the proposed use would be contrary to a recreational management plan, to terms and conditions imposed under section 10 or 11 or to an order of a director under section 12.

(2) Where the agricultural disposition holder is in compliance with section 4(1) and

(a) the person wishing to gain access fails to comply with section 5, or

(b) one or more of the circumstances referred to in subsection (1) exists,

the agricultural disposition holder may

(c) refuse access to the person wishing to gain access, or

(d) allow access subject to any terms or conditions imposed under section 7.

(3) Where an agricultural disposition holder refuses access under subsection (2)(c), the holder shall give to the person wishing to gain access reasons orally or in writing as to why access was refused.

[Kurt505]

So by the same letter of the law, if I owned land adjacent to where said landowner owns land, I could prevent him from hunting his land in case it effects my livestock?

This is a huge can of worms that can easily be beaten down in a court of law imo.