'Paid hunting' fee proposed to access land

[salamander]

‘Paid hunting’ fee proposed to access land

Alta Ranchers look for solutions as tension builds between those who lease public land those who want to use it.

The Western Producer
March 22, 2018 page 23
By Barb Glen
Lethbridge Bureau

BROOKS, Alta – An email sent to Fort Maclead, Alta., area rancher Bill Newton last fall was initially polite. A prospective hunter requested access to grazing land that Newton leases, specifying when and where he wanted to hunt. Newton sent a polite reply, refusing access due to excessively dry conditions and the heightened risk of fire. The prospective hunter’s next email was not so polite. It said Newton had no right to refuse access because leased land is also public land. After a few more exchanges, Alberta Environment and Parks settled the matter. The hunter was refused access because a fire ban was in effect for the region.

The incident is one example that illustrate the push and pull of public access to public grazing reserves and the concerns of leaseholders about that access. “There’s a new attitude,” Newton said about hunters and others who want access to grazing reserve land.
“What are the issues facing us leaseholders? Well, I think there’s an escalation of conflict. There’s increasing demand from hunters, it seems like, partly because of technology,” Newton told those at the March 7 meeting of the Alberta Grazing Leaseholders Association. That technology includes various smartphone applications that allow people to mark GPS locations where they see game, quickly learn who owns or leases the land, and make fast and repeated requests for hunting access.

AGLA secretary treasurer Darcy Wills said there’s a safety issue associated with allowing too many hunters onto a lease at any given time. He suggested the best person to make that call is the leaseholder. Alberta’s provincial regulations specify that “recreationalists are welcome on grazing reserves but are reminded that use of these areas may be restricted during certain times of the year.” Before entering leased land, potential users must contact the leaseholder, according to the regulations, and must be allowed “reasonable access.”
“What’s reasonable is still probably what’s causing us some angst,” said Newton. Provincial regulations indicate that access can be denied if: • users are not on foot • livestock is present in a fenced pasture • A crop has not yet been harvested • a fire ban is in effect • users wish to shoot a firearm or use an explosive near livestock • users want to camp.

The regulations further direct people to contact regional grazing offices or a website, recagpublicland.alberta.ca, for information. Users must keep motorized vehicles on roads or trails within grazing reserves, must leave gates as they find them and are prohibited from camping within those reserves.
Newton acknowledged that many hunters are respectful of the land and the leaseholders but many are not. He suggested leaseholders could use technology themselves to manage access through such things as a dedicated email for access requests or outsourcing them to a third party for later consideration by the leaseholder. His other idea is to implement an application fee. Under provincial legislation, hunters can’t be charged for access, but a fee for administering requests might be possible, Newton said. However, a system that pays ranchers and leaseholders for ecological goods and services is the ideal.

“Certainly, my preferred solution is a marketplace system of goods and services. Paid hunting. Call it what it is. “I’m providing the habitat on my freehold lands. I’m managing my leased lands to accommodate the wildlife and put up with the fact that they come off of the leased land to my stack yard in the winter. These things are not silos independent of themselves, leased land and freehold land, so why can’t I charge for access? So that’s certainly my preferred, but the Wildlife Act prevents that.”
A system of payment for ecological goods and services, which acknowledges the landholder’s role in such things as wildlife preservation, provision of habitat and biodiversity, has been studied by various groups and organizations but has not been established in Alberta.

[Salavee]

Paid hunting’ fee proposed to access land

Alta Ranchers look for solutions as tension builds between those who lease public land those who want to use it.

The Western Producer
March 22, 2018 page 23
By Barb Glen
Lethbridge Bureau

BROOKS, Alta – An email sent to Fort Maclead, Alta., area rancher Bill Newton last fall was initially polite. A prospective hunter requested access to grazing land that Newton leases, specifying when and where he wanted to hunt. Newton sent a polite reply, refusing access due to excessively dry conditions and the heightened risk of fire. The prospective hunter’s next email was not so polite. It said Newton had no right to refuse access because leased land is also public land. After a few more exchanges, Alberta Environment and Parks settled the matter. The hunter was refused access because a fire ban was in effect for the region.

Therin lies a major part of the hunting access issue .. hunters who think they have absolute rights ..
With fire hazards as high as they were last fall, especially in the southern areas, it was a no-brainer to refuse access to any private or leased land during that period, regardless of who might "own" it. These are the types of hunters that make it hard on the rest of us... Brain dead Hunters.

[fallen1817]

Originally Posted by Salavee

Paid hunting’ fee proposed to access land

Alta Ranchers look for solutions as tension builds between those who lease public land those who want to use it.

The Western Producer
March 22, 2018 page 23
By Barb Glen
Lethbridge Bureau

BROOKS, Alta – An email sent to Fort Maclead, Alta., area rancher Bill Newton last fall was initially polite. A prospective hunter requested access to grazing land that Newton leases, specifying when and where he wanted to hunt. Newton sent a polite reply, refusing access due to excessively dry conditions and the heightened risk of fire. The prospective hunter’s next email was not so polite. It said Newton had no right to refuse access because leased land is also public land. After a few more exchanges, Alberta Environment and Parks settled the matter. The hunter was refused access because a fire ban was in effect for the region.

Therin lies a major part of the hunting access issue .. hunters who think they have absolute rights ..
With fire hazards as high as they were last fall, especially in the southern areas, it was a no-brainer to refuse access to any private or leased land during that period, regardless of who might "own" it. These are the types of hunters that make it hard on the rest of us... Brain dead Hunters.

Just curious... I typically hunt private land, so it's not much of an issue... But would you, as a landowner (hypothetical), say no to a fellow rifle hunting, but say yes to a bowhunter that is doing a day trip? I can't really see me being much of a fire risk, with a day trip, and only using a bow, with no plan to have a campfire or use a stove etc.

I fully understand that I do not have a right in that situation, but I'm wondering if those factors would come into play.

J

[Norwest Alta]

Originally Posted by Salavee

Paid hunting’ fee proposed to access land

Alta Ranchers look for solutions as tension builds between those who lease public land those who want to use it.

The Western Producer
March 22, 2018 page 23
By Barb Glen
Lethbridge Bureau

BROOKS, Alta – An email sent to Fort Maclead, Alta., area rancher Bill Newton last fall was initially polite. A prospective hunter requested access to grazing land that Newton leases, specifying when and where he wanted to hunt. Newton sent a polite reply, refusing access due to excessively dry conditions and the heightened risk of fire. The prospective hunter’s next email was not so polite. It said Newton had no right to refuse access because leased land is also public land. After a few more exchanges, Alberta Environment and Parks settled the matter. The hunter was refused access because a fire ban was in effect for the region.

Therin lies a major part of the hunting access issue .. hunters who think they have absolute rights ..
With fire hazards as high as they were last fall, especially in the southern areas, it was a no-brainer to refuse access to any private or leased land during that period, regardless of who might "own" it. These are the types of hunters that make it hard on the rest of us... Brain dead Hunters.

I gotta agree with you. I have hard time figuring out why anyone would want to hunt where they’re not welcome. After a demanding email does the guy think he’ll ever have permission?

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by fallen1817

Just curious... I typically hunt private land, so it's not much of an issue... But would you, as a landowner (hypothetical), say no to a fellow rifle hunting, but say yes to a bowhunter that is doing a day trip? I can't really see me being much of a fire risk, with a day trip, and only using a bow, with no plan to have a campfire or use a stove etc.

I fully understand that I do not have a right in that situation, but I'm wondering if those factors would come into play.

J

If it were me, under the conditions that prevailed in some areas last fall, no one would be getting access. If conditions were a bit less severe, it would be foot access only. Apart from those it would be on an individual basis and likely no issues., rifle or archery. Sometimes other factors come in to play that really are more important than hunting. Major fires and a "sorry, I didn't mean to" don't cut it.

[fallen1817]

Originally Posted by Salavee

If it were me, under the conditions that prevailed in some areas last fall, no one would be getting access. If conditions were a bit less severe, it would be foot access only. Apart from those it would be on an individual basis and likely no issues., rifle or archery. Sometimes other factors come in to play that really are more important than hunting. Major fires and a "sorry, I didn't mean to" don't cut it.

100% agree. Thank you for your response.

[Mhunter51]

Just one more very good reason why that particular rancher will have ALL of his land ( and land under his care ) posted for no hunting because of one idiot who thinks it " my right ". After he was given a very good and correct reason why not he still had make a big deal. He is the kind of guy who would go back next year and try again. Pathetic.

[boah]

Originally Posted by Mhunter51

Just one more very good reason why that particular rancher will have ALL of his land ( and land under his care ) posted for no hunting because of one idiot who thinks it " my right ". After he was given a very good and correct reason why not he still had make a big deal. He is the kind of guy who would go back next year and try again. Pathetic.

Why would he post lease land?
Hunters might have to go through the process to get access.
He had good reason to say no. The hunter tried the process and was denied for good reason. That’s what the process is for. Can’t see a downside to this at all.

[Chuck_Wagon]

leased land is also public land

[fish_e_o]

lets just get it over with and pay for hunting



at least then hunters will have rights

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by Chuck_Wagon

leased land is also public land

It is public land, but it also has an appointed custodian called a Leaseholder. We should try and remember that.

[ctd]

There is already a process in place to access leased land.
There is already rules in place over access that land.
There is already a process in place to compensate landowners for loss of crops etc due to damage due to wildlife.

There is already a process in place that of a person uses land and causes damage they can be charged.

Why do we want a system in place to Pay for access to public land? For the most part are the lands not leased at a lower rate?

Maybe we should be charging landowner leasee a per head/per bushel charge. The Governemnt directly control all leased land and access to such.
I know of a group of rancher/farmers That have their own little sweet hunting spot set up. They talk about their land, their deer and moose along with their property. Tried to kick me off the land one hunting season. Until I asked if this was leased land or not? Then I mentioned my friends family name. He apologized pretty quickly.

What I found was a simple call to the local Grazing lease manager solves most issues right away.

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by ctd

There is already a process in place to access leased land.
There is already rules in place over access that land.
There is already a process in place to compensate landowners for loss of crops etc due to damage due to wildlife.

There is already a process in place that of a person uses land and causes damage they can be charged.

Why do we want a system in place to Pay for access to public land? For the most part are the lands not leased at a lower rate?

Maybe we should be charging landowner leasee a per head/per bushel charge. The Governemnt directly control all leased land and access to such.
I know of a group of rancher/farmers That have their own little sweet hunting spot set up. They talk about their land, their deer and moose along with their property. Tried to kick me off the land one hunting season. Until I asked if this was leased land or not? Then I mentioned my friends family name. He apologized pretty quickly.

What I found was a simple call to the local Grazing lease manager solves most issues right away.

Agreed.

[calgarychef]

Ok let's have a fee to access leased land, let the fee go to a good cause (conservation?), the ranchers will hate the idea because like oil revenue they aren't benefitting from the lease ...yes the lease where they're entitled to GRAZING their cattle. It's not their land, let the get used to that idea but honestly I have no problem paying a reasonable fee for a day of hunting, I've never paid but if it goes to a good cause I'm all for the idea.

[caddisfly7]

Question. When fire bans are in place, should a on the boots archery hunter be disappointed to not obtain hunting permission due to a fire ban? How much of a risk does a single bow hunter pose compared to range riders or farming equipment?

I understand that on one side of the coin stands a leaseholder who is responsible for the land and livestock, while on the other hand stands a hunter who may be trying to provide meat for his family and does not have to opportunity to travel far distances to crown (young family).

Is the answer sorry suck it up and go somewhere else to hunt? What about folks who dream of hunting the grasslands? Some folks have not had the opportunity nor the privilege to lease these incredible lands . Should they not have a an opportunity to enjoy them? Since they are truly public lands, belonging to all of us?

This got a little long from the initial question of how much risk does an archery hunter pose during a fire ban and is it enough to not allow access. Maybe two more bigger questions:

1. Does a hunter have a right or privilege to hunt these lease lands which are technically public

2. If a bow hunter is doing all he can to mitigate the chances of a fire starting during a fire ban, should there still be any reason to not allow access?

Of course I also understand the other reasons to deny access, especially when dealing with smaller chunks of land as livestock is usually either in or out.

[Little red riding hood]

Some people are just miserable, I met one last fall!
I was hunting near cherry point, and saw some elk on private property within a mile of a farm yard, so I stopped in and asked the guy if he knew who owned that land and he informed me that it was indeed his land, and so I asked if I could try for one of those elk, and rather than saying no...
He lit into me like I'd just raped his sister! He started cussing me out and going on about how he hated hunters and how dare I come onto his yard to ask for hunting access and went on to tell at me about someone shooting his dog last year mistaking it for a wolf.
So I wished him a good day and left, thinking that whoever shot his dog didn't mistake it for a wolf, but rather because he'd chewed them out for no reason as he did me!

[flyguyd]

Originally Posted by Norwest Alta

I gotta agree with you. I have hard time figuring out why anyone would want to hunt where they’re not welcome. After a demanding email does the guy think he’ll ever have permission?

It wouldnt matter what his approach was Newton would have never provided access anyhow, he wants to get paid he always has

[mcreg]

This post is speaking of Hunters, however I have had similar experiences with Off-road enthusiasts! Due to recent changes, both legislated and proposed, some off road individuals have challenged the refusal to leased lands as being their "right" to access public lands. They have even gone as far as to cut locks to gain access. Unfortunately the RCMP were required to set them straight!
Many of these leases were accessible prior, even when they need not be! However now the Leasee's are denying whenever they can under the terms of the lease. Any/all goodwill that was built up over the years both by responsible hunters and off roaders alike is gone!

[4pointswest]

Paid hunting to access public land is a slippery slope and i think it's in the hunting community's best interest to avoid this thought all together. This will inevitably turn into a bidding war and limit accessibility for those with limited resources.

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by caddisfly7

Question. When fire bans are in place, should a on the boots archery hunter be disappointed to not obtain hunting permission due to a fire ban? How much of a risk does a single bow hunter pose compared to range riders or farming equipment?

I understand that on one side of the coin stands a leaseholder who is responsible for the land and livestock, while on the other hand stands a hunter who may be trying to provide meat for his family and does not have to opportunity to travel far distances to crown (young family).

Is the answer sorry suck it up and go somewhere else to hunt? What about folks who dream of hunting the grasslands? Some folks have not had the opportunity nor the privilege to lease these incredible lands . Should they not have a an opportunity to enjoy them? Since they are truly public lands, belonging to all of us?

This got a little long from the initial question of how much risk does an archery hunter pose during a fire ban and is it enough to not allow access. Maybe two more bigger questions:

1. Does a hunter have a right or privilege to hunt these lease lands which are technically public

2. If a bow hunter is doing all he can to mitigate the chances of a fire starting during a fire ban, should there still be any reason to not allow access?

Of course I also understand the other reasons to deny access, especially when dealing with smaller chunks of land as livestock is usually either in or out.

1 : With the exception of one group ,there is no such thing as hunting "rights" in Canada.

2: What makes a Bowhunter particularily different than any other type of hunter ? If there is a valid reason for denying access of any kind, the custodian calls the shots. That's the way it is. Leaseholders have legal obligations regarding access to Leaselands and the public have legal safeguards in place to insure that access to leaseland is not abused by leaseholders. It's not all perfect but It works ... for the most part.

[Little red riding hood]

Originally Posted by 4pointswest

Paid hunting to access public land is a slippery slope and i think it's in the hunting community's best interest to avoid this thought all together. This will inevitably turn into a bidding war and limit accessibility for those with limited resources.

Agreed! Big money outfitters will buy all the access and the rest of us will be SOL.

[caddisfly7]

Originally Posted by Salavee

1 : With the exception of one group ,there is no such thing as hunting "rights" in Canada.

2: What makes a Bowhunter particularily different than any other type of hunter ? If there is a valid reason for denying access of any kind, the custodian calls the shots. That's the way it is. Leaseholders have legal obligations regarding access to Leaselands and the public have legal safeguards in place to insure that access to leaseland is not abused by leaseholders. It's not all perfect but It works ... for the most part.

Fair enough on the first question, but you somewhat dodged the second question. If a hunter (bow, rifle, anything) is fully mitigating the risk of starting a fire during a ban (foot access, leaving trucks at a designated spot, no lighters, and so on) should he still be denied access? I am asking as I do hope to hunt the southern leases one day and fire bans seem to be starting earlier and lasting longer nearly every year.

[Sledhead71]

Originally Posted by caddisfly7

Fair enough on the first question, but you somewhat dodged the second question. If a hunter (bow, rifle, anything) is fully mitigating the risk of starting a fire during a ban (foot access, leaving trucks at a designated spot, no lighters, and so on) should he still be denied access? I am asking as I do hope to hunt the southern leases one day and fire bans seem to be starting earlier and lasting longer nearly every year.

To fully mitigate the risk of fire, no access is the only answer.

[robbiebobbie]

Where I go they graze cattle on leased land during the summer and then remove them before hunting season. If they wanted to leave them there for hunting season there might be a leg to stand on for denying me the right to hunt, but if the cattle aren't there why shouldn't I have access to public land? I am not sure what the leases cost but the cattle ranchers I know get quite the benefit from it. Like it is probably a big reason then can have the enormous number of cattle they have. They do pay for the leases to graze, do we pay for the right to hunt on that land through our licences? Animals are a resource just like land. Maybe we should pay the government for the right to hunt that type of land. I know... I said the 'G' word...

[caddisfly7]

Originally Posted by Sledhead71

To fully mitigate the risk of fire, no access is the only answer.

I guess that is really the only way, no access/no use during fire bans. Fully mitigate the chances of a fire. Well hopefully I get the opportunity to hunt the leases one day! Stick to the forested crown for now! Thanks!

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by caddisfly7

Fair enough on the first question, but you somewhat dodged the second question. If a hunter (bow, rifle, anything) is fully mitigating the risk of starting a fire during a ban (foot access, leaving trucks at a designated spot, no lighters, and so on) should he still be denied access? I am asking as I do hope to hunt the southern leases one day and fire bans seem to be starting earlier and lasting longer nearly every year.

That situation is still at the discretion of the leaseholder/custodian. A particular fire ban, put in place by the Province or a Municipality often carries restrictions regarding the type of access to the area or particular lands involved. If there is an unresolved disagreement with a leaseholder, a third party would be the way to go.

[spellswrong]

Originally Posted by ctd

There is already a process in place to access leased land.
There is already rules in place over access that land.
There is already a process in place to compensate landowners for loss of crops etc due to damage due to wildlife.

There is already a process in place that of a person uses land and causes damage they can be charged.

Why do we want a system in place to Pay for access to public land? For the most part are the lands not leased at a lower rate?

Maybe we should be charging landowner leasee a per head/per bushel charge. The Governemnt directly control all leased land and access to such.
I know of a group of rancher/farmers That have their own little sweet hunting spot set up. They talk about their land, their deer and moose along with their property. Tried to kick me off the land one hunting season. Until I asked if this was leased land or not? Then I mentioned my friends family name. He apologized pretty quickly.

What I found was a simple call to the local Grazing lease manager solves most issues right away.

X2

[Rockman]

I understand this is a complex issue, and both tough for hunters who sometimes are denied without reason, and for leasholders who have a lot to consider in using lease lands. But I definitely lean in favor of no fees and we work to keep things fair for everyone, and to eliminate abuse when possible. It is a slippery slope if paid access is allowed and I only see it going downhill in time.

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by Sledhead71

To fully mitigate the risk of fire, no access is the only answer.

X2 To badger a rancher early last fall is the epitome of stupid. I didn't even bother asking about hunting until we got rain.

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by Rockman

I understand this is a complex issue, and both tough for hunters who sometimes are denied without reason, and for leasholders who have a lot to consider in using lease lands. But I definitely lean in favor of no fees and we work to keep things fair for everyone, and to eliminate abuse when possible. It is a slippery slope if paid access is allowed and I only see it going downhill in time.

Totally ! There's enough paid access going on already but paid access isn't marijuana ,so pbly not a good move to make it legal.