Perry Feed Lot???

[Bugle M In]

Seen new signage up saying "Perry Feed Lot No hunting".
Since seeing another thread where hunters "may have" broken the law,
I am enquiring to any hunters that know of this new signage and what's up.
This area has been open to hunt for years, and to the best of my knowledge, is
not "private property.
Perry Feed Lot has been around for years, but, they may have new owners??
Is this legit??
I seen some Ministry sign for "Graze Land" elsewhere in the vicinity, which is also new
this year.
Note: I didn't step out of the vehicle to read the signage from the ministry, as I was heading elsewhere,
but, from it's appearance, it doesn't state that you can not hunt in there, but I might have the wrong
assumption.

Enquiring as to who has some real knowledge of what has gone on in the past year in this area, and as
to the legitimacy of the signage's, and what is legal and what is not.
Was there some big sale of land? that it is now private.
Not even sure what a feed lot is, other than that this may be an area where cattle graze in through out
the winter months.....don't know...not a rancher..

I know some people just said it's BS, and continued on as always.
But, I'd rather get some of the REAL Facts if that is possible.

[Looking_4_Jerky]

I haven't been by there lately and don't know where the sign is question is, but everything between Battle Cr, Back Valley road and the highway is either owned in fee simple or lease, which the lessee can't control access to. On the south side, the highway is almost entirely bordered by fee simple land. I don't like the fact that the lessee can control access, but they can. It could just be that it was not being enforced but now is.

[Bugle M In]

the signs were on the North side of the highway, as you described is between back valley battle cr area.
what is fee simple? and how is this different from lease?
Who actually owns the land, the crown, or the ranch?
How does this differ, say, from areas around Merrit, up above Glimpse lake etc, which cattle graze on, yet there are no
signs saying no hunting.
What is so different with this area in question, compared to say the east side of battle cr., as cattle graze on all these
areas almost all year, or until they have to be off....
although, where the cattle go, is beyond me?
Sorry, as stated, I'm not in the cattle business, nor real estate for that matter.

[Rob Chipman]

Fee simple is how you own your house. Private property. As long as you pay your property taxes it's your's forever (with a few exceptions) once you've bought and paid for it.

Lease is essentially renting, but generally "lease" implies a longer term that can't be broken easily (like, a year, or two years, or three years).

[MattB]

Skeetchestn indian reserve is also in that area. If you know where the western town is on the hwy the reserve occurs basically from there north and east to the deadman valley.

[Bugle M In]

So, if this area in question is a "lease", than am I right to assume that the person leasing the land is the Province.
And if so, this "Crown" land, which is being leased out, can in fact, have access denied to it by the person leasing it,
even if the people entering it are only there to camp, fish or hunt.
In that case, how is it different from "Grazing Rights/Land", and how come not more places are leased for cattle etc.
Does Douglas Ranch also have the ability to deny access, and just have not done so.
Just trying to also understand the difference between this area in question, and many areas where you see cattle grazing
but they are not able to deny access....
Thanks for the replies so far.

[Looking_4_Jerky]

Yes, the leased land is Crown, but leases differ from other forms of tenure such as licenses and permits in that they are exclusive use tenures, and yes, unfortunately the lessee can keep you out. I've heard all sorts of contentions about how they have to let you in if livestock is not present and some other hogwash, but in a nutshell, public access is only legal with leaseholder consent, and Trespass is enforceable. Don't get me started on how crazy grazing leases are. New grazing leases are not available, but unfortunately existing leases are still being renewed.

When you see cattle ranging on Crown land (cut blocks, etc), that is by way of permit or license. The owner of the livestock has authorization enabling him/her to have cattle range on on otherwise untenured Crown land (and wreck wetlands and streams, but I digress). The tenure types that allow this grazing do not give the holder any rights to the land other than to allow their cattle there for the purposes of grazing.

Douglas Lake Ranch holds a pile of fee simple, and to a lesser extent grazing lease. To the best of my knowledge, they restrict access on most, if not all of it. The stuff that is open is probably so because either the roads have been excluded from the tenures, or because it's Crown land adjacent to the ranch's holdings and they can't actually preclude access.

[Bugle M In]

thanks L4J,

Now it gives me a better understanding of the situation.
I did use that Imap, and some of the settings to find out private property etc.
In a way, I don't feel very comfortable using it, as I am not completely sure which
boxes to tick, and the fact that the map was a little "buggy" when presenting the new layers etc
on the screen.
I did see that there is a block parcel of land that appears to be listed as property, although you would
have to know all the lettering and #'s used to describe that parcel.
None the less, it appears to be legit, at least on those 2 roads that access into the land.
It can however be entered from the west, as it is not private there, so all is good, as I don't own a quad.
Not sure why they changed their minds there or if a new owner is now present?.
There was a lot of activity in their by the "Dirt Bike Club", who cut trails all over the place over the years.
To be honest, it made me sick that they did that (DBC), as it was a nice place to hike up, but after that,
every one with a ORV,DB was up there, and everything changed.
Thanks for the replies

[Trophyslayer]

I know the owners and the land where the sign has been posted is private land. Nothing was enforced for years while other groups were leasing the property. Now with every Tom dick and Harry having a quad and no respect and destroying the grasslands they are limiting access, not all is deeded land but most of the surrounding area is a exclusive lease from the crown which they can legally control access too. If you had people destroying your grazing area and killing your livestock you would do all you could to keep them out. The Lake can be accessed west of the cattle guard off of back valley road for people to fish. Grassland and winter range destruction is a very serious problem in the province.

[Bugle M In]

I know the owners and the land where the sign has been posted is private land. Nothing was enforced for years while other groups were leasing the property. Now with every Tom dick and Harry having a quad and no respect and destroying the grasslands they are limiting access, not all is deeded land but most of the surrounding area is a exclusive lease from the crown which they can legally control access too. If you had people destroying your grazing area and killing your livestock you would do all you could to keep them out. The Lake can be accessed west of the cattle guard off of back valley road for people to fish. Grassland and winter range destruction is a very serious problem in the province.
it is, and I know the dirt bike club has been ripping it up for years now.
the guys hunting with quads not so much, but it does amaze me the little respect people have when using them at times.
some hunters with quads stick to the roads or the original trails, and others rip all over.
I guess the DB club will just end up ripping a trail up on the west end now, as I see it isn't private over there...just saying.
Although, on second thought, that ministry grazing sign might say they can not leave the trail/road system.
Still, who is going to enforce it, if it ain't private property.
As said, I was happy hiking there years ago, until the bikes and quads made they way up.
You had to be in good shape to be up there, but now, you can have a 300 pnd guy in a 2 seater eatng his
cheeseburger while riding past where you just spent 3 hrs hiking up.
Cant blame Perry's, but it does bother me that access is becoming more and more restricted because of such issues.
Everyone who hunts loses in the end.

[Doostien]

it is, and I know the dirt bike club has been ripping it up for years now.
the guys hunting with quads not so much, but it does amaze me the little respect people have when using them at times.
some hunters with quads stick to the roads or the original trails, and others rip all over.
I guess the DB club will just end up ripping a trail up on the west end now, as I see it isn't private over there...just saying.
Although, on second thought, that ministry grazing sign might say they can not leave the trail/road system.
Still, who is going to enforce it, if it ain't private property.
As said, I was happy hiking there years ago, until the bikes and quads made they way up.
You had to be in good shape to be up there, but now, you can have a 300 pnd guy in a 2 seater eatng his
cheeseburger while riding past where you just spent 3 hrs hiking up.
Cant blame Perry's, but it does bother me that access is becoming more and more restricted because of such issues.
Everyone who hunts loses in the end.

To clarify, the ministry sign states "Access of the road is restricted to signed, designated trails only". Meaning unless it has a sign stating 'Open Access' then that trail is off limits.

As for who's going to enforce it; CO's, RCMP, C&E, Lease holders. No access has been 'lost'. People just had never looked to see where they could hunt, short of the obvious things like fences, now people everywhere are having their eyes opened that their favourite spots may not have been 'theirs'.

[Bugle M In]

To clarify, the ministry sign states "Access of the road is restricted to signed, designated trails only". Meaning unless it has a sign stating 'Open Access' then that trail is off limits.

As for who's going to enforce it; CO's, RCMP, C&E, Lease holders. No access has been 'lost'. People just had never looked to see where they could hunt, short of the obvious things like fences, now people everywhere are having their eyes opened that their favourite spots may not have been 'theirs'.

Um, I didn't see that the entire area is private property.
In fact, the area that is (private), is not a major honey hole anyways.
The only reason this area was of any interest, was for the quads trying to get up top...IMO.
Up top, from what I've seen is not private property, and those who have hunted up top, from what I can see,
have never been breaking any law.
All that this has done, by saying "private property" has stopped mainly quads and the DB Club from ripping up the hillside
on all those trails, that, obviously never existed in the past, years ago.
There have been lots of guys who have hiked up and will continue to hike up, just not thru there.
As for quads and other ORV, well that's a different story.
But, knowing what people are like, it won't stop them from making another trail up, somewhere outside those few corridors.
Most likely on the south west side, if they haven't already!!.(power lines)
As said, I get why, especially if it is Private Property, due to ORV, grassland damage,
but it's not like that whole area is Private Property.
Obviously I, and many others, know who is to enforce the rules, but really, there aren't enough of them,
which has always been the problem, not just there but everywhere.
I saw quite a few ORV lights still coming down in the dark, a few weeks ago.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all good with limiting ORV access...long overdue in my books.
But, it's not like the entire country side is private because 2 signs were put up, it really is a small area that was in
question.(especially when there never were signs up before on the entry points stating private property).
That was the reason for the thread, to ask what was up.

Most hunters only camped in there and took the ORV's up the trail, now they will camp on the west end of the lake,
as I saw some already doing.
So "their" spot, as stated, was never a great spot anyways...IMO.
It was more about "how" they were able to access their spots to hunt, which they still can.
Just now with 2 legs and just outside the Private Property Boundary.
And as for cattle being shot, I have a hard time believing that is the case up there, and if it was, I don't see how
signs limiting access is going to stop the people who are doing that (Sadly), as the cattle graze all over the place,
way outside the private property border, much of the time.
Anyways, I appreciate the info, and in the future I can better inform other hunters who were up there who also
weren't sure what the heck was up with those signs.
Thanks

[Looking_4_Jerky]

Up top, from what I've seen is not private property, and those who have hunted up top, from what I can see,
have never been breaking any law.
All that this has done, by saying "private property" has stopped mainly quads and the DB Club from ripping up the hillside...

...but it's not like that whole area is Private Property...



so, as we were saying, it is not private property but it is lease, so if you are up there without landowner consent you are breaking the law, unless it is on trails that have been deleted from the leased area. The problem with that is, the moment you step off the designated trail, you are trespassing. That effectively makes it unhuntable. The other thing to look out for is that in many cases the trails that have been deleted from the lease no longer exist or maybe had fallen out of use years ago, and since then new trails or access routes have been established but not within the deleted corridors.

It would suck to be flipping the rancher the bird thinking that you are on a trail where they can't restrict access only for them to point out you are not actually in the right spot and he is writing down your plate number! Doh!!

[Bugle M In]

so, as we were saying, it is not private property but it is lease, so if you are up there without landowner consent you are breaking the law, unless it is on trails that have been deleted from the leased area. The problem with that is, the moment you step off the designated trail, you are trespassing. That effectively makes it unhuntable. The other thing to look out for is that in many cases the trails that have been deleted from the lease no longer exist or maybe had fallen out of use years ago, and since then new trails or access routes have been established but not within the deleted corridors.

It would suck to be flipping the rancher the bird thinking that you are on a trail where they can't restrict access only for them to point out you are not actually in the right spot and he is writing down your plate number! Doh!!

yup, on imap I can see the roads which are removed and not restricted.

[Bugle M In]

ok, so the new signage is at the 2 entrances to the private property...understood.
I can also see why these signs were put there due to all the ORV activity and Grassland Damage.
So, did the owners change hands at Perry's or not.
Also, the Grazing Lease around the area (not grazing licence), is safe to assume is also held by Perry's??
I know Perry's has been around a while, but I have no idea if it has always been owned by the same person.
Is this still the same people, or , someone new?
Also, has anyone had experience trying to obtain permission from them to hunt there? if so, what was the answer?
I know:

Wildlife Act (Section 39) - A person is
not permitted to hunt on cultivated land
or on Crown land which is subject to a
grazing lease while the land is occupied
by livestock, without the consent of the
owner, lessee or occupant of the land.

Which, can be up to interpretation.
Some state a Grazing Lease is like Private Property, meaning no permission, no hunt.
But, under Sec.39, "while the land is occupied by cattle" means what:
Does this area (grazing lease)have cattle on it all year round, or are they off after a certain point
in a calendar year??
Leaves some question to if permission is needed all the time, on a grazing lease, if, say the cattle
have been moved off the grazing lease area, say to a private property elsewhere?
I'll talk to the CO I know about that interpretation and what is etc.

All one can hope is that they grant permission if asked, if one states they won't be using any
ORV or DB of any type...??
I have heard from some people (some DB Club members as well) about how much riding goes on
up there and all the tracks left behind (grassland damage), so it doesn't surprise me to see the signs come up.

Well, I am glad I am asking, as it is never and was never my intention to break any laws.
Anybody that knows the area, knows that for years people camped and hunted there, and it didn't seem to be an issue.
Meaning, no one ever talked about being charged for trespassing or asked to leave and pack up their camps,
at least not to my knowledge, but than again, there never were signs up all those years that I can recall.
As for the fences, there are tons of cattle fences all over, that are nothing to do with private property or grazing leases,
so just because there is a fence, doesn't make people think they were doing anything wrong, especially when there are
plenty of Grazing Licences also in the area.

[Doostien]

Grazing Leases are always attached to private property. So Perry's would likely be the leaseholders.


This is the actual reading of section 39 of the wildlife act.

Agricultural and cleared land39 (1) A person commits an offence if the person, without the consent of the owner, lessee or occupier of land,
(a) hunts over or traps in or on cultivated land, or
(b) hunts over Crown land that is subject to a grazing lease while the land is occupied by livestock.
(2) This section does not affect the Trespass Act (http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96462_01).

The regs leave the second part out. Permission is required 24/7 365. The thing about cattle just gives the CO more teeth to go after guys if there is a chance of endangering livestock.

You said about no one ever being asked to leave. That for the most part is true, up until recently. There was, and probably still is, a huge culture of fear ranchers have about kicking people off. Most fear either immediate retribution, or someone coming back later and doing something like setting fire to something. It was true in my family and all others that I've spoken too. A lot of guys wouldn't post their land for the same reason.

In the last ~3 years, the forest service/MOE finally started dealing with these issues. They had success in the interior and its spread out from there. Mind you, these issues have been raised by ranchers for decades now, its only been recently they've had support in enforcing the lease issue.

[Bugle M In]

OK, I will try contacting them next season, if I have the desire to try there.
I will post again than, if Perry's will give hunter's (myself) permission, if you ask nicely.
I'll be interested to see what happens.
Especially, since I don't hunt with an ORV, or need to camp there.(so I wouldn't be damaging grassland)
And their Cattle wouldn't be harmed due to careless species identification, and one of their cattle being shot.
Now, I sort understand why the controversy over grazing lease, rather than grazing license.
No real need for grazing leases, especially when the property is still actually owned by the crown.
A renewable yearly(or 5 year) grazing license would be sufficient.... IMO.
As for ORV, that's a whole different matter, especially if the land is under a grazing permit/ or sadly, a lease.
It's obvious that any land that has a grazing permit, should be under ORV restrictions, or at least, not allowed
to leave a road.
Anyways, I hope this is just a case of the rancher (Perry's Feed Lot) wanting to stop the continues damage to the
Grasslands due to ORV etc, which is totally understandable to me, and not something more than that..??
Thanks Dootsien for your input.