Review to probe land use in B.C. wildlife habitats

[GoatGuy]

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/article17109438.ece?service=mobile

Review to probe land use in B.C. wildlife habitats MARK HUME
VANCOUVER — The Globe and Mail
Published Wednesday, Feb. 26 2014, 9:00 AM EST



The B.C. government has called for a full review of lands owned by conservation groups, to determine how many areas that were set aside to protect wildlife habitat have been leased out by the Crown as cattle range.


Forest, Lands and Natural Resources Minister Steve Thomson promised the review Tuesday, in response to concerns raised by Ducks Unlimited Canada, The Nature Trust and the Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation.




The three groups wrote to the government Friday, raising alarms over Bill 5, legislation now in third reading that among other things amends the Range Act. Under the proposed changes, grazing tenures, which ranchers acquire so their cattle can range freely on Crown land, would be extended to cover a period of 20 or 25 years, not 10 years.


Until they scrutinized Bill 5 last week, the conservation groups didn’t know privately owned conservation lands were being included when adjacent Crown land was leased out by government for cattle grazing.


“It has come to our attention that this draft legislation represents a potentially serious threat to our lands and investments in conservation,” the groups stated in a joint letter. “Range tenures under the Range Act appear to have been applied, inadvertently or otherwise, to over 50 conservation sites in B.C., totalling over 22,000 hectares including critical properties on Vaseux Lake, Columbia Lake and Wigwam Flats.”

The groups demanded an explanation as to why government is granting range tenures on land turned over to the Crown to be managed for wildlife.


“We met with the groups this morning to explain the intent of the amendments. I think there is some misunderstanding,” said Mr. Thomson, who pointed out the bill only extends leases that already exist. “We don’t see the legislation as [having] impact one way or the other … but I think it’s a matter of making sure that we sit down and work through that with them.”


He said he has promised the groups a detailed analysis of what conservation lands have been leased out. “These are very, very important partners for us,” he said of the three groups, which typically work with government to secure and protect lands for conservation.

Les Bogdan, B.C. director of Ducks Unlimited, said he didn’t know until last week that the government was granting grazing tenures on conservation lands – and he doesn’t want to see those leases extended without a careful review.


“Our concern [is] that as soon as Bill 5 passes, then all those [grazing leases] would automatically be extended … and we’re saying, no, no, no.”

Mr. Bogdan said some conservation lands might be compatible with grazing, but some, where sensitive habitat is at risk, might not be. “We need to be able to review that and say pull these off the table because they are not for tenure,” he said.


Brian Springinotic, chief executive officer of the Habitat Conservation Trust Fund, said the legislation caught him by surprise. “We are scrambling to understand the scope of it,” he said. “The primary concern is that we were simply unaware of this and weren’t consulted about the potential impact on properties that we helped others acquire for habitat purposes.”


Jesse Zeman, of the B.C. Wildlife Federation, said he’s concerned the government is making money by leasing out land owned by conservation organizations. Any profits, he said, should go into a wildlife enhancement fund.


Rick Mumford, land stewardship co-ordinator for the BC Cattlemen’s Association, said his group asked for the amendments because small ranchers are getting tangled up in red tape, renewing grazing tenures every 10 years, and they simply want longer leases. “It’s just to reduce all the admin associated with these tenures,” he said.

[bearvalley]

Just food for thought and not trying to start another pissing match Jesse but how much thought has been put into the conservation habitat good provided to provincial wildlife by farmers and ranchers. From what I see a lot of good habitat for game (including birds) is on private ranch land. These 25 year tenures just replace the 10 year renewals. Nothing else has changed. So a cow eats a little public grass... a duck or deer eats some private.

[GoatGuy]

It isn't public grass, it's private grass. Many of the properties are OWNED by TNT, DU, HCTF and many of these spots have clauses that exclude grazing leases, yet they somehow have grazing leases now.

This isn't a ranchers versus hunters/conservationists problem. This is a matter of government renting out private land, taking the cheque and pocketing it.

Most of these properties are in biodiversity hotspots and critical winter range. And many of them were purchased because they were being over-grazed - they were set aside specifically for fish and wildlife full stop. Lastly, several have been enhanced through ecosystem restoration which again was paid for out of pocket by hunters through HCTF - they weren't burned for cattle, they were burned for wildlife.

I will say it again- this isn't a rancher versus hunter problem. It's a matter of government renting out property that it doesn't own.

To make it more personal, and so that people get it, everybody who has purchased a hunting/fishing license is a shareholder in HCTF - you purchased this property for fish and wildlife, and government has rented it out without bothering to ask.

Can only imagine what people would have to say if they got home and the government had dropped 20 steers off in their yard to graze and never bothered to ask or share the rent.

Make sense?

[adriaticum]

Just food for thought and not trying to start another pissing match Jesse but how much thought has been put into the conservation habitat good provided to provincial wildlife by farmers and ranchers. From what I see a lot of good habitat for game (including birds) is on private ranch land. These 25 year tenures just replace the 10 year renewals. Nothing else has changed. So a cow eats a little public grass... a duck or deer eats some private.

You seem to struggle with the public/private thing.

What a crock this is.
How can government lease out private land.

[Ourea]

This is as "wrong" as it gets.
Ownership needs to have final say, period.

I have no issue with graze leases being issued by ownership if ownership feels that the habitat is no too sensitive etc.
For someone else to "rent" out your property is fundamentally wrong.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Good to see Mr Thomson listening to the letters of concern sent his way!
He's a good guy who listens.

SSS

[bearvalley]

Good to see Mr Thomson listening to the letters of concern sent his way!
He's a good guy who listens.

SSS
Exactly right. Steve Thomson is a guy that listens and thinks. The only way cattle can be kept out of these special spots is to fence them. The same as you build a fence between 2 prices of private land or between private land and crown. The only problem is who builds the fence and who maintains it? Is it justified to fence small parcels? Are there not Ministry personal capable of monitoring the critical areas? Sorry but the way the private land rule works it is the responsibility of the land owner to build and maintain fence on private land bordered by crown. The crown has no obligation to fence at all. So if the land in question belongs to TNT or DU they have to fence it.
Adriaticum I dont know how it works where you come from but that's how it is here. I'm pretty sure you would be one of the first to volunteer to be on the fencing crew. If not stay in Surrey and babble about something you understand. As far as the public/private thing I think I have a better grasp of it than you. By the way you never did answer my question from before. Do you OWN a house? Or do you still live with your mom?

[Spy]

Good to see Mr Thomson listening to the letters of concern sent his way!
He's a good guy who listens.

SSS
x2 & in a week he has a response for the people he works for, us!

[Doostien]

These aren't grazing 'leases', they are tenures, or licences.

From reading this I am reminded of mineral rights. Someone can own the dirt, but someone else can hold the mineral rights and mine it as they see fit. Timber rights follow the same vein. It doesn't surprise me that grazing rights could be excluded from private land. In fact, private land in the Lac du Bois grasslands are owned by the Nature Conservancy, but grazing rights were retained by the previous owners.

I'm sure a lot of these lands have clauses like this, we will have to wait for the review to find out how many of them the government has botched.

[adriaticum]

Exactly right. Steve Thomson is a guy that listens and thinks. The only way cattle can be kept out of these special spots is to fence them. The same as you build a fence between 2 prices of private land or between private land and crown. The only problem is who builds the fence and who maintains it? Is it justified to fence small parcels? Are there not Ministry personal capable of monitoring the critical areas? Sorry but the way the private land rule works it is the responsibility of the land owner to build and maintain fence on private land bordered by crown. The crown has no obligation to fence at all. So if the land in question belongs to TNT or DU they have to fence it.
Adriaticum I dot know how it works where you come from but that's how it is here. I'm pretty sure you would be one of the first to volunteer to be on the fencing crew. If not stay in Surrey and babble about something you understand. As far as the public/private thing I think I have a better grasp of it than you. By the way you never did answer my question from before. Do you OWN a house? Or do you still live with your mom?


Sorry I missed your question, I do own a house and I wish my mom could live with me.

You claim you know private/public but the first thing you say is DU land is public.
So which is it?

[GoatGuy]

Exactly right. Steve Thomson is a guy that listens and thinks. The only way cattle can be kept out of these special spots is to fence them. The same as you build a fence between 2 prices of private land or between private land and crown. The only problem is who builds the fence and who maintains it? Is it justified to fence small parcels? Are there not Ministry personal capable of monitoring the critical areas? Sorry but the way the private land rule works it is the responsibility of the land owner to build and maintain fence on private land bordered by crown. The crown has no obligation to fence at all. So if the land in question belongs to TNT or DU they have to fence it.
Adriaticum I dot know how it works where you come from but that's how it is here. I'm pretty sure you would be one of the first to volunteer to be on the fencing crew. If not stay in Surrey and babble about something you understand. As far as the public/private thing I think I have a better grasp of it than you. By the way you never did answer my question from before. Do you OWN a house? Or do you still live with your mom?

The issue at hand is range tenures being given by the government for private property which was purchased exclusively for wildlife.

This is not a fencing related issue.

People need to stay focused and write their MLAs so we can get this problem dealt with before its rammed through.

[cruiser]

"The groups demanded an explanation as to why government is granting range tenures on land turned over to the Crown to be managed for wildlife."


So are these private lands with a restrictive covenant on the title? So the property remains private but the area is in RC to minimize taxes? Definitely not good then if the province 'manages' that habitat by just treating it as equivalent to surrounding crown land.

[IronNoggin]

... Can only imagine what people would have to say if they got home and the government had dropped 20 steers off in their yard to graze and never bothered to ask or share the rent.

I know how I'd answer. "Feral" steers might taste mighty fine... :twisted:

Cheers,
Nog

[bearvalley]

I know how I'd answer. "Feral" steers might taste mighty fine... :twisted:

Cheers,
Nog

With attitudes like that it's no wonder Douglas Lake locks their gates as a bunch of guys are whining about in other posts. Nobody has any facts here other than private land was bought by DU or TNT and handed over to Goverment for management. No one has said if these pieces of private/ ex-private land are adjoined by crown land or by another parties private deeded ground. Maybe it's not worth the hassle to build and maintain fences. Maybe there is a prior grazing use covenant. Maybe some cattle in the area will reduce the fuel load and lessen the chance of fire.
Nobody knows the facts here.
Jesse you say it's not a fencing issue. Do you know that? If DU or TNT purchased land and handed it over to Goverment then who's responsible to fence cows out and maintain fence. Like I said I'm not firing up a pissing match but there are to many questions not answered.
Adriaticum you've stated a few times I can't tell the difference between private and public when it comes to property rights. Why don't you enlighten us instead of just babbling because you can't stuff your hand in someone's cookie jar. What are you thoughts on this, if any? By the way are you growing up many deer, elk or moose on your lawn?
Maybe we should sit back and see what Steve Thomson has to say.

[GoatGuy]

http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/Bill_5.jpg

http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/Bill5_2.jpg

[GoatGuy]

Same question:


Nobody has any facts here other than private land was bought by DU or TNT and handed over to Goverment for management. No one has said if these pieces of private/ ex-private land are adjoined by crown land or by another parties private deeded ground. Maybe it's not worth the hassle to build and maintain fences. Maybe there is a prior grazing use covenant. Maybe some cattle in the area will reduce the fuel load and lessen the chance of fire.
Nobody knows the facts here.
Jesse you say it's not a fencing issue. Do you know that? If DU or TNT purchased land and handed it over to Goverment then who's responsible to fence cows out and maintain fence. Like I said I'm not firing up a pissing match but there are to many questions not answered.
Maybe we should sit back and see what Steve Thomson has to say.

Same answer


The issue at hand is range tenures being given by the government for private property which was purchased exclusively for wildlife.

HCTF has paid for fencing in the past and we all recognize how fencing works (or doesn't). The point here is the land was rented out, unknowingly, and none of the land owners ever saw a nickle and no one wants that extended for another 20 years. Most of the agreements with government have specific clauses that stipulate no vegetation disturbances. There are leases/tenures which were grandfathered as part of the sale - we aren't talking about those properties. In some areas the tenure was purchased to bring AUMs down so that bunch grass communities could begin to recover. On properties such as Kamloops lake and Vaseux lake fuel load is not the concern - it's sheep habitat, over-grazing, and noxious weeds.

You seem to be leaning towards a conservationist/rancher issue (fencing is a classic)- although there are a pile of people on either side of the debate that are pointing at each other it isn't, gov't shoulders this.

If people can pick up a pen, government will make it right. My guess is they're in the process as we speak.

[limit time]

With attitudes like that it's no wonder Douglas Lake locks their gates as a bunch of guys are whining about in other posts. Nobody has any facts here other than private land was bought by DU or TNT and handed over to Goverment for management. No one has said if these pieces of private/ ex-private land are adjoined by crown land or by another parties private deeded ground. Maybe it's not worth the hassle to build and maintain fences. Maybe there is a prior grazing use covenant. Maybe some cattle in the area will reduce the fuel load and lessen the chance of fire.
Nobody knows the facts here.
Jesse you say it's not a fencing issue. Do you know that? If DU or TNT purchased land and handed it over to Goverment then who's responsible to fence cows out and maintain fence. Like I said I'm not firing up a pissing match but there are to many questions not answered.
Adriaticum you've stated a few times I can't tell the difference between private and public when it comes to property rights. Why don't you enlighten us instead of just babbling because you can't stuff your hand in someone's cookie jar. What are you thoughts on this, if any? By the way are you growing up many deer, elk or moose on your lawn?
Maybe we should sit back and see what Steve Thomson has to say.
HaHa! You fail!

[bearvalley]

HaHa! You fail!

Very intelligent! Did you get your shoes on the right feet this morning.

[bearvalley]

Goat Guy: Why don't you throw all your cards out in front instead of trickling them out so you can appear to be the top habitat, wildlife, ranching, outfitting, aircraft expert.
I'm surprised there was no CC: Goat Guy at the bottom of the letter addressed to Tom Ethier?

[GoatGuy]

Goat Guy: Why don't you throw all your cards out in front instead of trickling them out so you can appear to be the top habitat, wildlife, ranching, outfitting, aircraft expert.
I'm surprised there was no CC: Goat Guy at the bottom of the letter addressed to Tom Ethier?

That letter was posted on here two days ago.

http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/showthread.php?104762-DU-HCTF-TNT-write-government-re-Bill-5

Current article was printed today. Information being dispersed as it comes in.

All in all pretty straightforward stuff. Facts have all been laid out in that letter - should be enough for concern when three big conservation groups, who have no advocacy role, write something like that.

Try to share info on here so people have an idea what's going on. Those who are interested can make use of it.

Always a highjacker in the crowd and that's OK too - used to it. Unfortunately third reading is coming up and we don't have the luxury of time to deal with all the 'what ifs'.

Not much interest in the rest of the noise.

[Whonnock Boy]

Goat Guy: Why don't you throw all your cards out in front instead of trickling them out so you can appear to be the top habitat, wildlife, ranching, outfitting, aircraft expert.
I'm surprised there was no CC: Goat Guy at the bottom of the letter addressed to Tom Ethier?

How long have you been around here? Obviously not long enough.... GG repeatedly back his statements with studies, literature, and facts. He does more for wildlife management than 99% of B.C. resident hunters. He has taught me, and countless others how wildlife management really works. I have rarely, if ever seen him spew bs to suit his own agenda. I have the utmost respect for him. If you have a bone to pick with him, you are picking it with myself, and numerous others. But ya know, he doesn't need my help here, I'm sure he will put you in your place if he feels the need. :-?

[TheProvider]

Funny how some people make great educated posts and others simply attack people... over and over again

[bearvalley]

No bone to pick with Jesse and I do admit he tries to explain what he can about wildlife management. However he's not the only one on this site with a bit of knowledge on the topic. There's even a few kicking around this site that were dealing with wildlife/ predator issues while he was still wet behind his ears. No insult meant to Goat Guy.
I'm not trying to hijack either but more biased opinions can be voiced if everything is put out up front instead of a piece at a time just to stir up the audience.
If cattle are specified to be out of the critical areas then they belong out. Maybe it should be left up to the 7 or 8 guys named in the letter to sort out. In the meantime let the pack keep yapping I've got a pretty thick hide.

[Sofa King]

With attitudes like that it's no wonder Douglas Lake locks their gates as a bunch of guys are whining about in other posts. Nobody has any facts here other than private land was bought by DU or TNT and handed over to Goverment for management. No one has said if these pieces of private/ ex-private land are adjoined by crown land or by another parties private deeded ground. Maybe it's not worth the hassle to build and maintain fences. Maybe there is a prior grazing use covenant. Maybe some cattle in the area will reduce the fuel load and lessen the chance of fire.
Nobody knows the facts here.
Jesse you say it's not a fencing issue. Do you know that? If DU or TNT purchased land and handed it over to Goverment then who's responsible to fence cows out and maintain fence. Like I said I'm not firing up a pissing match but there are to many questions not answered.
Adriaticum you've stated a few times I can't tell the difference between private and public when it comes to property rights. Why don't you enlighten us instead of just babbling because you can't stuff your hand in someone's cookie jar. What are you thoughts on this, if any? By the way are you growing up many deer, elk or moose on your lawn?
Maybe we should sit back and see what Steve Thomson has to say.

really?
what, are they chawin' up the beetle-kill trees now?
the little green grass they chew on isn't doing shit to prevent fires.
all it's doing is eating up the wild games food.

[bearvalley]

really?
what, are they chawin' up the beetle-kill trees now?
the little green grass they chew on isn't doing shit to prevent fires.
all it's doing is eating up the wild games food.

The little green grass that turns into 3 foot high mature stuff sure burns good don't you think? Let it build up for a few years and it burns better.

[OutWest]

Maybe there is a prior grazing use covenant. Maybe some cattle in the area will reduce the fuel load and lessen the chance of fire.
Nobody knows the facts here.

Allowing cattle to graze in critical winter range is nothing but bad news. Overgrazing is a major problem, one only needs to look at places like Gilpin to see the effects. Native species lacking, bunchgrasses mowed down to the soil, invasive species and weeds littering the hillside.

[bearvalley]

Allowing cattle to graze in critical winter range is nothing but bad news. Overgrazing is a major problem, one only needs to look at places like Gilpin to see the effects. Native species lacking, bunchgrasses mowed down to the soil, invasive species and weeds littering the hillside.

No argument on that. Like I said before it's best left to be sorted out by the people that have some maps and facts in front of them not the internet drama queens that are only half fed.

[GoatGuy]

No bone to pick with Jesse and I do admit he tries to explain what he can about wildlife management. However he's not the only one on this site with a bit of knowledge on the topic. There's even a few kicking around this site that were dealing with wildlife/ predator issues while he was still wet behind his ears. No insult meant to Goat Guy.
I'm not trying to hijack either but more biased opinions can be voiced if everything is put out up front instead of a piece at a time just to stir up the audience.
If cattle are specified to be out of the critical areas then they belong out. Maybe it should be left up to the 7 or 8 guys named in the letter to sort out. In the meantime let the pack keep yapping I've got a pretty thick hide.

Couple of considerations.

1) These organizations are not advocacy groups - they don't drive change. In this context their role is to purchase, enhance and manage. Their legal status is not consistent with lobbying or advocacy.

2) Huge habitat conservation organizations such as DU seldom to never issue letters to this effect (nor does HCTF or TNT) - that should ring the first bell. Particularly DU as they often work hand in hand with private land owners. And, no one was consulted on this bill (these changes have been in the works for 4 years).

3) The only people who have the ability to drive change and ensure this issue is dealt is the public as it is clearly a policy and legislative issue. If people who care about the investments made by DU, TNT and HCTF don't speak up this issue will get rammed through - I can assure you of that.

4) If you've bought a hunting or fishing license you've invested in HCTF - you are by proxy a shareholder and should be concerned with how the assets you purchased are being managed.

5) This bill is going in to third reading and there's very little time to figure out part of the story nevermind the whole story


Realizing all these issues, a conservation-minded person should make sure their MLA is aware of this situation---- if they care. That is the only way this will be rectified.

Have no idea what the biased opinions are - it seems like you haven't bothered to read the letter issued by HCTF, TNT and DU or newspaper article where they were interviewed. Who else you need to hear from on this issue? The cattlemen have not issued a statement as this is not their issue and they are not to blame - this is government's issue. Do you think DU is in this because they want to be? There is no 'gain' for them being involved at this level.

I can assure you the last thing these organizations want to do is be involved with policy and legislation at the 11th hour.

If you're concerned and feel you aren't getting a representative response here call DU, TNT or HCTF to ask the questions and get the answers you need.

[bearvalley]

To tell you the truth Jesse I did read the article and the letter. One of the things mentioned was these private DU, TNT or HCTF lands are bordered by crown land in some cases. That's where the fencing issue comes in as I tried to point out. The problem there is the crown does not fund a fence on a private/ crown boundary.
Government likes to pass the buck and duck problems. The ranchers that are going to get drug into this didn't need the headache. Smart ass comments about shooting feral steers doesn't cut it either. If these critical areas do border an existing crown range and cattle do not belong there the simple solution is FENCE. The problem is who builds it. The BC Government or DU,TNT,HCTF as the owner.
You're right no one needs this headache at the 11th hour.
Probably the best call to make is Tom Ethier and tell him it's time to start fencing. Cattle or livestock do not know the difference between private, public or sacred land.

[Ricky Bobby]

To tell you the truth Jesse I did read the article and the letter. One of the things mentioned was these private DU, TNT or HCTF lands are bordered by crown land in some cases. That's where the fencing issue comes in as I tried to point out. The problem there is the crown does not fund a fence on a private/ crown boundary.
Government likes to pass the buck and duck problems. The ranchers that are going to get drug into this didn't need the headache. Smart ass comments about shooting feral steers doesn't cut it either. If these critical areas do border an existing crown range and cattle do not belong there the simple solution is FENCE. The problem is who builds it. The BC Government or DU,TNT,HCTF as the owner.
You're right no one needs this headache at the 11th hour.
Probably the best call to make is Tom Ethier and tell him it's time to start fencing. Cattle or livestock do not know the difference between private, public or sacred land.

Perhaps your a little thick... this isn't about fencing. This is about leasing out land that they have no right too. If you hand me your 1000 acre ranch and say manage it for wildlife how happy would you be if I leased it out to a ATV club to build tracks on?

Not about fencing. Its about leasing lands they have no right to lease.

[bearvalley]

I would tend to say its about passing the buck on a management issue. It's a hell of a lot easier for the Goverment to try and slide this land out the back door under a lease it to a rancher scheme than it is for the government to actually manage it for wildlife and conservation. It takes fencing and fence maintance to keep livestock out.
Do you get it? Who's thick?

[OutWest]

This always happens, someone provides unbiased information and it gets derailed by someone who clearly doesn't get it.

Get your letters in folks. Sent mine this morning and received a prompt reply. Squeaky wheel gets the grease.

[GoatGuy]

I would tend to say its about passing the buck on a management issue. It's a hell of a lot easier for the Goverment to try and slide this land out the back door under a lease it to a rancher scheme than it is for the government to actually manage it for wildlife and conservation. It takes fencing and fence maintance to keep livestock out.
Do you get it? Who's thick?

I think what happened here is the range branch didn't consult anyone on Bill 5. I don't think anyone else knew what was going on. I think the critical thing is to ensure that these conservation properties don't end up with a 20 year tenure on them and that no other properties are opened up to tenure either. That is the first objective.

Secondly, I think that the landowners (HCTF,DU,TNT) should be reimbursed for the money that government collected from ranchers in these areas.

Once we get this bill dealt with and people reimbursed for renting their private property where it's required we can figure out if we have a fencing related problem and how we will deal with that.

It seems like a logical approach to this problem.