'Paid hunting' fee proposed to access land

[hilt134]

At the very most I will settle that private land could be paid access. However grazing leases are not private property. I do not think that ranchers who lease the land from the government should be able to charge people. They can still say no when the law let's them but let's try and keep public land as public as possible

[flyguyd]

Originally Posted by Little red riding hood

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

And you think some of them dont already:sHa_sarca sticlol:

[Pathfinder76]

Someone needs to do a serious tax analysis across all sectors before we start any talk of more cost to certain users.

[Norwest Alta]

Originally Posted by flyguyd

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

Don't know of him but if you want to hunt his land then I guess you know what has to happen. I don't think any landowner should have to explain himself on who gets permission and who doesn't.

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by Norwest Alta

Don't know of him but if you want to hunt his land then I guess you know what has to happen. I don't think any landowner should have to explain himself on who gets permission and who doesn't.

Land owner no, lease holder needs to explain himself.

[sharpstick]

"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 if these animals are eating all your crop and taking money out of your pocket, why on earth would you deny access to hunters that will help control the populations and thin the herds?
one reason is the mentality of SOME leaseholders (not all) is "whats in it for me?"
Also they deny access so them and their family and friends can hunt it all to themselves.
In saying this, I agree that access can/should be denied when there is a fire ban.

[hal53]

Originally Posted by sharpstick

"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 if these animals are eating all your crop and taking money out of your pocket, why on earth would you deny access to hunters that will help control the populations and thin the herds?
one reason is the mentality of SOME leaseholders (not all) is "whats in it for me?"
Also they deny access so them and their family and friends can hunt it all to themselves.
In saying this, I agree that access can/should be denied when there is a fire ban.

There are standard conditions set out to the leaseholder under which they may deny access. As well, the leaseholder may apply for additional reasonable conditions, if the minister approves these they apply to that particular lease only. If a leaseholder is denying access for any reason other than the above one phone call to the Gov't. land manager gets it cleared up pretty quickly

[abhunter8]

Originally Posted by flyguyd

And you think some of them dont already:sHa_sarca sticlol:

Unfortunately this is true. In 2015 when seeking access to lease land in WMU 119 about a month before the Antelope season opener. One leaseholder told me If I wanted to access his land I had to go through his neighbour outfitter. I clarified that he was saying that if I wanted to access his land to hunt I had to pay his neighbour outfitter for access. He said Yes! I then called the neighbour outfitter and the info was confirmed. I reported to the lease land manager and Fish and Wildlife in the area. The land manager didn't seem to care much. Fish and wildlife were aware of the Outfitter and this situation I spoke of and said they would investigate. I followed up a month later with the Fish and wildlife officer and nothing had yet been found or done. I followed up once again, six months later and they didn't even seem to have a record of my complaint. Then when I pushed a bit they advised, yes they investigated and found nothing. It was disheartening! I did however have an amazing 2015 antelope hunt, thanks to many fantastic leaseholders which made my experience even better!

[TBark]

Hard to want it both ways guys.
What the most common reason or excuse for a leaseholder to deny access ? Likely they say there is already people going in.
I have heard this many times myself.
And people comment that they saw no vehicles at the approach, yadda yadda.
So let’s say you did get permission on a quarter of land on a set date.
You thank the leaseholder and your last question to him is, can we expect to see any other hunters out there.
And he replies and says yes, you will likely see many others as he has had several requests and he does not care who enters.
How would you feel ? Would you even bother hunting there now ?
So if, say a $20 fee guaranteed you a AM hunt or $30 got you a day and nobody else would be there to bother you.
Just asking, and I am not a leaseholder.

TBark

[last minute]

grazing leases are not private property. I do not think that ranchers who lease the land from the government should be able to charge people.

Agreed

[58thecat]

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

I believe it's your land your rules.

I know a few spots that the fella lets in only bow hunters, no more than four which is awesome to see game etc.
I guess it all depends as I know a mother who lets anyone in and it s a free for all....so I hit that up early season then get the heck out of dodge to save my skin.

[Pikebreath]

Originally Posted by 58thecat

I believe it's your land your rules.

I know a few spots that the fella lets in only bow hunters, no more than four which is awesome to see game etc.
I guess it all depends as I know a mother who lets anyone in and it s a free for all....so I hit that up early season then get the heck out of dodge to save my skin.

Oh my,,,,,, she really must be something special

Auto-correct issues aside,,, some guys really seem to get choked up when access is limited to a few at a time, but the reality is if everyone is let in at all times, it can become a gong show and hunting quality really suffers.

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by Pikebreath

Oh my,,,,,, she really must be something special

Auto-correct issues aside,,, some guys really seem to get choked up when access is limited to a few at a time, but the reality is if everyone is let in at all times, it can become a gong show and hunting quality really suffers.

Yup, she is a he....I think....a 180" typical whitey.....once I get it and see what it really is then I can share this info more accurately.

[dmcbride]

What is the difference between lease land with lots of hunters or crown land with lots of hunters? What makes one more special?

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by Little red riding hood

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

Oh yes ! All those big money Outfitters charging hundreds of thousands for deer hunts can likely tie up all the land in the province 👍

[caddisfly7]

Originally Posted by dmcbride

What is the difference between lease land with lots of hunters or crown land with lots of hunters? What makes one more special?

To me in the forested region, I rather just hunt crown to avoid this whole conversation as well as there are many acres to hunt and get away from folks. But in the southern/grassland units there is not that option besides hunting small patches ACA land and such (which I do hunt ACA land often). That's my opinion.

[Norwest Alta]

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

Oh yes ! All those big money Outfitters charging hundreds of thousands for deer hunts can likely tie up all the land in the province 👍

Yep I don't know of many landowners who will give up control on who hunts or accesses their land to someone else. Chances are weather it's paid access or not Joe Bush the hunter wouldn't have access to this land anyways. Seems to me that many are worried about losing access that they have never had or will ever get.

[fish_e_o]

Originally Posted by Norwest Alta

Chances are weather it's paid access or not Joe Bush the hunter wouldn't have access to this land anyways.

i'm a fair weather hunter so this is a concern for me

[muzzy]

Originally Posted by hal53

There are standard conditions set out to the leaseholder under which they may deny access. As well, the leaseholder may apply for additional reasonable conditions, if the minister approves these they apply to that particular lease only. If a leaseholder is denying access for any reason other than the above one phone call to the Gov't. land manager gets it cleared up pretty quickly

This from Hal above is spot on. All conditions both the standard government lease package and additional conditions set by leaseholder and APPROVED by government are set out and available for anyone to read on website. Leaseholders do have to build/ maintain fences water sources etc so do have their own costs on leased land. Most are very good if you are requesting access within the condition parameters set out but I have ran into others who try to circumvent access anyway they can. I had one who was initially trying everything he could to stop my access. I was civil but referred it to land manager ( I let the leesee know I would) It got resolved and I now have access and no issues with leesee but in a conversation with him I asked why he was against me accessing and turns out some quadders were accessing and partying a few years earlier, had a bonfire get out of control and started the whole qtr ablaze ( there were neighbouring farms and homes) County fire department put out the fire and guess who got stuck with a $9600 bill from county fire dept the leesee. I can see why some get rather upset

[Mulehahn]

Just throwing this out there because I grew up close to Vancouver. If you wanted to hunt in the Fraser Valley you had to have insurance. Most people just put a rider on their home policies or joined a Fish and Wildlife Group that offered it; others got direct policies. It was around $30 a year and covered you for all hunting and fishing activities.

Seems to me that this would be the easiest solution. Make it mandatory for anyone wishing to hunt Lease Land to have Insurance. Get rid of all the other BS. No more denying access (restrictions such as foor access only can still apply) but for the most part if you have insurance you could access lease land anywhere in the province. Has this ever been considered?

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by salamander

‘Paid hunting’ fee proposed to access land
. 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.”
.

^^^This says it all.^^^



If you're leasing land to support wildlife, maybe just don't lease land! I'm sure ol' Newton could care less about the wildlife, he's got other thing$ on his mind.

[calgarychef]

There's no reason the government couldn't set up a sign up program on every damned lease in the province.

Apply for your days, pay a fee that covers administration and goes to conservation as well as a fund or insurance to cover damage to leases done by hunters. Make it a condition that all cattle have to be off the leass by certain dates and that's the end of the problems with outfitters, ranchers etc. Make it so that even outfitters have to apply for dates for their clients.

I see no downside to this arrangement.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by calgarychef

There's no reason the government couldn't set up a sign up program on every damned lease in the province.

Apply for your days, pay a fee that covers administration and goes to conservation as well as a fund or insurance to cover damage to leases done by hunters. Make it a condition that all cattle have to be off the leass by certain dates and that's the end of the problems with outfitters, ranchers etc. Make it so that even outfitters have to apply for dates for their clients.

I see no downside to this arrangement.

I can't see a downside to it, except I think there would have to be some kind of order or it might end up like a radio show contest, first 10 callers get the prize.

[TBark]

Might work,
Start with an amount of booking points, say 12, you book a day, or half day, on a parcel at 30 days notice, week later you know if your booking was successful, if so, one point is used and ur fee is due, if not drawn u get that point back.
So u can have 12 requests planned, allotted to other possible dates or parcels.
One successful booking puts you one P point behind others not drawn on that parcel.

TBark

[CanuckShooter]

This whole idea of leased land and hunters being denied access seems off the mark to me. The land is leased and if they are not actively running livestock or farming it....then there should be no ability for the lease holder to deny you access.

It's crown land and it isn't being utilized under the lease, so it should be treated the same as any other crown land. It's obscene to think the lease holder could be selling access rights to outfitters when rank and file hunters are turned away. Think about it.

[The Spank]

Just end grazing leases on public land. Give the ranchers free pass to grazing and take the onus off the rancher for access by other users. Issue solved.

[Norwest Alta]

To tell the truth I don't know much about the grazing leases that many are up in arms about. Seems to me the grazing leases locally here are very accessible. Must be different in other areas? If for some reason due to the vehicle restrictions a guy can't hunt a grazing lease there is no shortage of crown land one can hunt on.

[J.B.]

Originally Posted by calgarychef

There's no reason the government couldn't set up a sign up program on every damned lease in the province.

Apply for your days, pay a fee that covers administration and goes to conservation as well as a fund or insurance to cover damage to leases done by hunters. Make it a condition that all cattle have to be off the leass by certain dates and that's the end of the problems with outfitters, ranchers etc. Make it so that even outfitters have to apply for dates for their clients.

I see no downside to this arrangement.

Booking days to hunt is the biggest pain in the arse ever. Working in the trades, it's often easy to grab a day off to go hunting afyer a good snowstorm. But wait, I didn't have a day booked on PUBLIC land! Guess I'll just drink beer. Last year i cut my September hunt short due to dry conditions, and lack of land access (and rightly so with the fire hazard) and took more time off in oct/nov. That wouldn't have worked well at all with booking days. I like flexibility. The current system is not broken. Don't try fix it.
Are there some unreasonable leaseholders? Yes. But by and large accessing lease land has been a breeze for me.

[calgarychef]

Originally Posted by J.B.

Booking days to hunt is the biggest pain in the arse ever. Working in the trades, it's often easy to grab a day off to go hunting afyer a good snowstorm. But wait, I didn't have a day booked on PUBLIC land! Guess I'll just drink beer. Last year i cut my September hunt short due to dry conditions, and lack of land access (and rightly so with the fire hazard) and took more time off in oct/nov. That wouldn't have worked well at all with booking days. I like flexibility. The current system is not broken. Don't try fix it.
Are there some unreasonable leaseholders? Yes. But by and large accessing lease land has been a breeze for me.

The system is indeed broken, we all know how much lease land is tied up with outfitters and "friends." Understand about the flexibility part, I work too. I've accessed land that inhad to book ahead and it worked well. It's nice to know that there are only "x" amount of hunters on the land per day. Also it doesn't have to be all leased land, there's huge pieces of leased land that gets minimal pressure that land maybe doesn't need to be booked.

I actually think this is a good although small stream of revenue for the province and it would eliminate the bad apples from preventing us accessing "our" own crown land. I have great relationships with many ranchers who treat us very nicely, it's the "others" treating crown land as their own that p'ss me off.

[thumper]

Originally Posted by hal53

There are standard conditions set out to the leaseholder under which they may deny access. As well, the leaseholder may apply for additional reasonable conditions, if the minister approves these they apply to that particular lease only. If a leaseholder is denying access for any reason other than the above one phone call to the Gov't. land manager gets it cleared up pretty quickly

^^ My view exactly.

In my experience, government land managers usually clear up problems with lease-holders blocking access outside of the standard, and ministerial special conditions - but not always.

My main concern is that in many cases, the leaseholder seems unaware of their responsibility to permit recreational access within the set conditions.
Thanks to the print ads with the hunting regulations, outdoor publications and other media, every hunter I know is aware of their responsibilities for accessing grazing leases - and the penalties for not doing so. Yet I don't think that leaseholders have a similar awareness of their responsibilities, and I've never heard of any penalty applied to a leaseholder purposely denying access without a bona-fide reason not to.

I've had plenty of frivolous 'reasons' given to me to deny access by different leaseholders over the years that clearly indicated that the leaseholder was unaware of what reasons would be considered 'bona-fide' under their lease agreement. "My wife doesn't like hunting" is one that's come up a few times. I've also experienced ranchers that refuse to differentiate their deeded land from public grazing leased land - combining all of it as "Their land"in their refusal.