Alberta grazing leases keep $45M per year out of public hands, review finds

[dmcbride]

I don't think the NDP is going to back down from this.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-grazing-leases-review-calgary-1.3409117

An independent review suggests the Alberta government would have as much as $45 million in extra annual revenue if it revamped how it handles grazing leases.

The long-standing program allows cattle producers to rent vast swaths of Crown land and was criticized last summer by the province's auditor general.

Merwan Saher said the government manages 5,700 grazing leases on more than two million hectares of public land on behalf of Albertans, which contributes about $4 million each year to government coffers.

Saher said it appears ranchers leasing from the government are deriving personal financial benefits when they turn around and accept compensation from oil and gas companies to gain access to wells on that land. He said the province is forgoing more than $25 million each year as a result.

The independent review by the University of Alberta's Land Institute looked at alternative models for grazing leases, including one in place in neighbouring Saskatchewan. Each would result in increased compensation to the province ranging from $36 million to $45 million a year, the review suggested.

"We went into it somewhat naively looking at how those revenues would change ... but as we dug into the system, we realized it's a lot more complicated than just flicking a switch," said research director Vic Adamowicz.

"I think we went into it thinking it was a little more black and white than it was."

The government is doing its own review of the leasing program and Environment Minister Shannon Phillips has met with the land institute.

"The information they presented, and that provided by other stakeholders including agriculture and oil and gas producers, helps to inform and support future policy decisions," Phillips said.

Adamowicz said the government must consider rental payments leaseholders make as well as compensation they receive from energy companies. Oversight from Alberta's Surface Rights Board is also needed, he said.

System is 'super flawed'

Cliff Wallis from the Alberta Wilderness Association said leaseholders have been doing a good job caring for the land, but some are making a lot of money that could go elsewhere.

"It's super flawed. It basically creates haves and have-nots between the have ranchers who have oil and gas wells and those who don't," Wallis said.

"The money that comes from surface rights payments should be going back into a grassland conservation fund or a public land conservation fund to deal with wildlife issues, compensating ranchers for various things, help with conservation."

Wallis said his group would "scream like stuck pigs" if the government tried to divert any new lease money into general revenues.

The Alberta Grazing Leaseholders Association admits the program isn't perfect, but believes the auditor general should have done more homework.

"There are a lot of people who don't understand it and don't want to listen to why it works the way it does, but it's been a very good instrument over the years to ensure these lands were settled and cared for," said Larry Sears, who leases about 2,300 hectares in southwestern Alberta.

"The vast majority of the leaseholders in the province have five or less installations and less than half of the leaseholders get any oil and gas activity at all."

[Okotokian]

"There are a lot of people who don't understand it and don't want to listen to why it works the way it does, but it's been a very good instrument over the years to ensure these lands were settled and cared for," said Larry Sears, who leases about 2,300 hectares in southwestern Alberta.
Yes, because god forbid there was land that wasn't "settled" and that any citizen could go on. The land in K Country isn't "settled", and seems OK to me. (McBride, I know you are just quoting, not advocating)


"The vast majority of the leaseholders in the province have five or less installations and less than half of the leaseholders get any oil and gas activity at all."

So the majority of lease holders should have no problem with taxpayers getting the resource revenue instead of leaseholders. I have no problem with grazing leases. Just make them for grazing. If there is a resource disruption on 10% of the lease, reduce the lease payments by 10%.

I own rental property. If there is ever compensation for city-caused disruption or expropriation, I guess my renters will get the money, not me.

[OpenRange]

The money isn't resource revenue. I wish everyone would stop referring to it in that way. It is compensation for loss of use and the adverse effects and disruption to the leaseholder caused by oil and gas activity. They build a road into the well, mow the road allowance which is now useless for grazing and mow the entire leases in most cases. I still have to pay for those acres in my lease agreement with the province. As well I had to pay for those acres when I purchased the lease from the previous owner. The province thinking they will receive those damages is idiotic. The oil/gas companies must be licking their chops waiting for this, the first thing they will do is stop paying because the province isn't incurring any damages, the leaseholder is. They will challenge that in court and win, no doubt. The province cannot prove loss of use to itself because they aren't actually using the property, it's just sitting there. If you think the companies won't do that I can think of 45 million reasons they would. Also the province takes about 20% of the damages in taxation and also receive their own substantial revenue from wells. Point being the government would have to open the Surface Rights Act to amend the legislation and that would open up the whole act to possible industry challenges, and with depressed energy revenues for companies, expect a fight.

[^v^Tinda wolf^v^]

Agreed, this is an idiotic move. On the other hand a person could fill the freezer with t bones a lot easier ! :sEm_oops2:

[rugatika]

The money isn't resource revenue. I wish everyone would stop referring to it in that way. It is compensation for loss of use and the adverse effects and disruption to the leaseholder caused by oil and gas activity. They build a road into the well, mow the road allowance which is now useless for grazing and mow the entire leases in most cases. I still have to pay for those acres in my lease agreement with the province. As well I had to pay for those acres when I purchased the lease from the previous owner. The province thinking they will receive those damages is idiotic. The oil/gas companies must be licking their chops waiting for this, the first thing they will do is stop paying because the province isn't incurring any damages, the leaseholder is. They will challenge that in court and win, no doubt. The province cannot prove loss of use to itself because they aren't actually using the property, it's just sitting there. If you think the companies won't do that I can think of 45 million reasons they would. Also the province takes about 20% of the damages in taxation and also receive their own substantial revenue from wells. Point being the government would have to open the Surface Rights Act to amend the legislation and that would open up the whole act to possible industry challenges, and with depressed energy revenues for companies, expect a fight.

How much does a farmer get for access rights on leased land per well? I've never really heard how the amount is derived.

[Kanonfodder]

How much does a farmer get for access rights on leased land per well? I've never really heard how the amount is derived.

Deeded land gets a much higher compensation level

[Okotokian]

Deeded land gets a much higher compensation level

So that would also be public subsidization of the industry? Use public lands and the crown will take/get less than a private landowner would?

[Unregistered user]

So they're finally listening to Bob Scammell.

[elkhunter11]

I guess they are looking for money to pay for those new civil service jobs , that they just created.:)

[Domestique]

And the noose tightens around cowboy welfare, 'bout time.

[schmedlap]

The money isn't resource revenue. I wish everyone would stop referring to it in that way. It is compensation for loss of use and the adverse effects and disruption to the leaseholder caused by oil and gas activity. They build a road into the well, mow the road allowance which is now useless for grazing and mow the entire leases in most cases. I still have to pay for those acres in my lease agreement with the province. As well I had to pay for those acres when I purchased the lease from the previous owner. The province thinking they will receive those damages is idiotic. The oil/gas companies must be licking their chops waiting for this, the first thing they will do is stop paying because the province isn't incurring any damages, the leaseholder is. They will challenge that in court and win, no doubt. The province cannot prove loss of use to itself because they aren't actually using the property, it's just sitting there. If you think the companies won't do that I can think of 45 million reasons they would. Also the province takes about 20% of the damages in taxation and also receive their own substantial revenue from wells. Point being the government would have to open the Surface Rights Act to amend the legislation and that would open up the whole act to possible industry challenges, and with depressed energy revenues for companies, expect a fight.

You are correct in what the compensation is for. But, I don't think the "right of entry" and disturbance compensation amounts are what is being talked about, so much. What is being talked about is who should receive the annual surface lease rental compensation. I would agree that it is the occupant, not the owner, who should get most of the inital compensation for entry, construction, disturbance, and the like. The 20% you speak of is not, I believe, "taxation", but rather the levy for the share of this compensation that they take as owner. Both owner and occupant are entitled to compensation under the Surface Rights Act, and if they do not agree, with the operator, as to amount and shares, the Surface Rights Board determines this.

The damages are in effect "deemed" by the Act. One does not have to prove "actual" to receive them. The extent is an issue of the type of disturbance, etc. So arguing that the operators will not have to pay the Province just the same is specious. It is the Act which governs this, not general common law. This is one of those diversionary arguments that is thrown out and eaten up because people do not know that it is just wrong.
The Act does not distinguish between owner and occupant in terms of the total compensation payable. It does not matter who is entitled - the total amounts do not change.

The government does not have to "open" the Act to bring in minor amendments to change compensation in grazing lease matters. It just needs to make quite minor amendments to a few sections, or add a section or two. This is done to many statutes on a regular basis. It does not put the whole statute up for debate (any more than it is on a daily basis, like any laws) - just the changes - and a majority government has the final say anyway. This has no effects on industry at all. Again, a purely diversionary argument with no merit at all.

The real issue is who should get the surface lease Revenue (not the initial compensation, which is distinct). Under the Public Lands Act, the rentals for grazing leases are based purely on a "forage value" formula for the particular lands. This has not been up-dated in the regs for a very long time, and needs to be. In any event, the intrusion of a surface lease has a measurable impact on that, and thus, the rent should be reduced accordingly. But that does not indicate, to me at least, why the rental should go to the lessee and not the owner. I see that aspect of it as a "windfall" subsidy from the public purse. To compare it to the situation of lessees of private land for the same purposes, the standard is that the owner gets the revenue, and the lessee gets an appropriate per acre rental reduction due to the loss of useable area.

I do think they would have to "grandfather" any changes, to make this fair to those who purchased leases on the market in partial reliance on existing projected surface lease revenues with respect to the price paid. The government should make the changes applicable only to new surface leases arising after the changes are enacted, and maybe renewals of existing surface leases made more than x years after the enactment.

[sjd]

No-one objects to ranchers being compensated for impacts. It's when those payments are 10 times greater than the fee the rancher pays to access crown land that is stinks like a scam.

It's an obvious place where taxpayer is not being protected and there is financial problem that should be exposed.

Where is the fiscally conservative opposition standing up for the taxpayer and highlighting the very small number of individuals abusing the system? Silence.

[sirmike68]

[QUOTE=sjd;3113662]No-one objects to ranchers being compensated for impacts. It's when those payments are 10 times greater than the fee the rancher pays to access crown land that is stinks like a scam.

X2

[shep dog]

This is far overdue.

Bob Scammell had it right 20-odd years ago.

Ol' Doc Seaman is probably rolling over in his grave.

[mich]

Yes, because god forbid there was land that wasn't "settled" and that any citizen could go on. The land in K Country isn't "settled", and seems OK to me. (McBride, I know you are just quoting, not advocating)

Some of it was until it was legislated out of private hands


So the majority of lease holders should have no problem with taxpayers getting the resource revenue instead of leaseholders. I have no problem with grazing leases. Just make them for grazing. If there is a resource disruption on 10% of the lease, reduce the lease payments by 10%.

Welcome to how it is factored in already

I own rental property. If there is ever compensation for city-caused disruption or expropriation, I guess my renters will get the money, not me.

If your renter lost use of what he is paying for ...yes

So that would also be public subsidization of the industry? Use public lands and the crown will take/get less than a private landowner would?

no, you have half of the story

I guess they are looking for money to pay for those new civil service jobs , that they just created.:)

The net effect will be the same or less money and they will create many more union leeches

And the noose tightens around cowboy welfare, 'bout time.

so wrong in so many ways

[mich]

[QUOTE=sjd;3113662]No-one objects to ranchers being compensated for impacts. It's when those payments are 10 times greater than the fee the rancher pays to access crown land that is stinks like a scam.

X2

These properties are kinda like the lost city of Atlantis..... you hear about them but no one has ever seen them

[purgatory.sv]

You are correct in what the compensation is for. But, I don't think the "right of entry" and disturbance compensation amounts are what is being talked about, so much. What is being talked about is who should receive the annual surface lease rental compensation. I would agree that it is the occupant, not the owner, who should get most of the inital compensation for entry, construction, disturbance, and the like. The 20% you speak of is not, I believe, "taxation", but rather the levy for the share of this compensation that they take as owner. Both owner and occupant are entitled to compensation under the Surface Rights Act, and if they do not agree, with the operator, as to amount and shares, the Surface Rights Board determines this.

The damages are in effect "deemed" by the Act. One does not have to prove "actual" to receive them. The extent is an issue of the type of disturbance, etc. So arguing that the operators will not have to pay the Province just the same is specious. It is the Act which governs this, not general common law. This is one of those diversionary arguments that is thrown out and eaten up because people do not know that it is just wrong.
The Act does not distinguish between owner and occupant in terms of the total compensation payable. It does not matter who is entitled - the total amounts do not change.

The government does not have to "open" the Act to bring in minor amendments to change compensation in grazing lease matters. It just needs to make quite minor amendments to a few sections, or add a section or two. This is done to many statutes on a regular basis. It does not put the whole statute up for debate (any more than it is on a daily basis, like any laws) - just the changes - and a majority government has the final say anyway. This has no effects on industry at all. Again, a purely diversionary argument with no merit at all.

The real issue is who should get the surface lease Revenue (not the initial compensation, which is distinct). Under the Public Lands Act, the rentals for grazing leases are based purely on a "forage value" formula for the particular lands. This has not been up-dated in the regs for a very long time, and needs to be. In any event, the intrusion of a surface lease has a measurable impact on that, and thus, the rent should be reduced accordingly. But that does not indicate, to me at least, why the rental should go to the lessee and not the owner. I see that aspect of it as a "windfall" subsidy from the public purse. To compare it to the situation of lessees of private land for the same purposes, the standard is that the owner gets the revenue, and the lessee gets an appropriate per acre rental reduction due to the loss of useable area.

I do think they would have to "grandfather" any changes, to make this fair to those who purchased leases on the market in partial reliance on existing projected surface lease revenues with respect to the price paid. The government should make the changes applicable only to new surface leases arising after the changes are enacted, and maybe renewals of existing surface leases made more than x years after the enactment.



Like your post they usually contain information that can be relevant to procedures.

[avb3]

A little known fact is that many farmers and ranchers over and above the surface disturbance payments, charge a so-called consulting fee to the oil companies for negotiating the payments on grazing leases. It is not unheard of to see this being charged out at 3 to $400 a day.

You will never see any of those figures on any contracts.

[lannie]

A little known fact is that many farmers and ranchers over and above the surface disturbance payments, charge a so-called consulting fee to the oil companies for negotiating the payments on grazing leases. It is not unheard of to see this being charged out at 3 to $400 a day.

You will never see any of those figures on any contracts.

If that is a fact then you have proof to show us right?

[hal53]

A little known fact is that many farmers and ranchers over and above the surface disturbance payments, charge a so-called consulting fee to the oil companies for negotiating the payments on grazing leases. It is not unheard of to see this being charged out at 3 to $400 a day.

You will never see any of those figures on any contracts.
Another little known fact is the oil companies pay someone to negotiate the contracts too

[MountainTi]

A little known fact is that many farmers and ranchers over and above the surface disturbance payments, charge a so-called consulting fee to the oil companies for negotiating the payments on grazing leases. It is not unheard of to see this being charged out at 3 to $400 a day.

You will never see any of those figures on any contracts.

That's about 1/3rd of what I would charge. It is oilfield, why wouldn't I charge my oilfield daily rate?

[deerguy]

I for one look foreword to this. The farmers need compensation for a new fense then no problem. All you have to do is ask.

[MountainTi]

Deeded land gets a much higher compensation level

About 3X higher from any numbers I have heard

[hillbillyreefer]

That's about 1/3rd of what I would charge. It is oilfield, why wouldn't I charge my oilfield daily rate?

Some people like avb3 believe agricultural producers shouldn't make a profit, investing millions in an operation should just be for fun.

[hillbillyreefer]

About 3X higher from any numbers I have heard

More in a lot of cases.

[Matt L.]

More in a lot of cases.

Wonder if that's changing or is going to change.

[MountainTi]

Some people like avb3 believe agricultural producers shouldn't make a profit, investing millions in an operation should just be for fun.

Precisely. When I am working in the oil industry, I get paid a day rate my first minute of work. Why should negotiations with an oil company be any different? Work to be done elsewhere in a multi million dollar business (farm). Cut into that day, it needs to be paid for

[hillbillyreefer]

Wonder if that's changing or is going to change.

The way things are going no one will be getting any new leases.

Now the dippers are creating more uncertainty in agriculture, first bill 6, now this, let's get on with it and get it over with. It's difficult to plan with these morons running the show.

[Ranch11]

A little known fact is that many farmers and ranchers over and above the surface disturbance payments, charge a so-called consulting fee to the oil companies for negotiating the payments on grazing leases. It is not unheard of to see this being charged out at 3 to $400 a day.

You will never see any of those figures on any contracts.

Never heard of this before. I've heard of negotiating payment, but only one deeded land.

[Ranch11]

I know our payments for our lease land compared to our deeded land is waaaaaaaay less. One grazing lease has two oil leases on it, one active and abandoned. 2500$ a yr. and it'll be less this year I'm sure. The other lease has zero oil leases on it. That 2500$ doesn't even cover wages to maintain fences on it.

[lannie]

Never heard of this before. I've heard of negotiating payment, but only one deeded land.

Same here and I think from previous posts we both have grazing leases.

[hillbillyreefer]

There isn't much they can do about actual leases in the short term anyway, most have a minimum 10 year term some are 20-25. Hopefully in exchange for losing money we can increase control over access rights.

[jip911]

There isn't much they can do about actual leases in the short term anyway, most have a minimum 10 year term some are 20-25. Hopefully in exchange for losing money we can increase control over access rights.

Lol, grazing leases bring in just over 4 million dollars into the government cookie jar... A drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things and you expect to have increased control over lands that you already benefit greatly on and pay minuscule amounts for.

Unbelievable the sense of entitlement some people have over something they dont own.

It's the equivalent of borrowing someone's truck to haul a load of gravel in and paying for the gas You burned and somehow thinking you own the keys.

J

[Deer Hunter]

Some lessees weren't happy cashing oil company cheques, they also needed to play games on crown leases for recreational access...

:scared0018:

[lannie]

Lol, grazing leases bring in just over 4 million dollars into the government cookie jar... A drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things and you expect to have increased control over lands that you already benefit greatly on and pay minuscule amounts for.

Unbelievable the sense of entitlement some people have over something they dont own.

It's the equivalent of borrowing someone's truck to haul a load of gravel in and paying for the gas You burned and somehow thinking you own the keys.

J

So why don't you get in on it if you think its a great deal? Lots of leases for sale, pony up !

[lannie]

There isn't much they can do about actual leases in the short term anyway, most have a minimum 10 year term some are 20-25. Hopefully in exchange for losing money we can increase control over access rights.

That's also new to me.... I thought most are 5 year and some are shorter.

[Clarksen]

There isn't much they can do about actual leases in the short term anyway, most have a minimum 10 year term some are 20-25. Hopefully in exchange for losing money we can increase control over access rights.How would you increase control of access and for who?

[CMichaud]

So why don't you get in on it if you think its a great deal? Lots of leases for sale, pony up !


Honest question - where does one go to see the government leases that are actually listed for lease?

[lannie]

Honest question - where does one go to see the government leases that are actually listed for lease?

Not sure what you actually mean but all my dealings are in the edmonton office. To find leases for sale check Kijiji or phone SRD in Edmonton and see if any are repoed because it does happen. It is all public info but there is a lot of B.S. and misinformed people out there. I don't think to many things are actually fair in life once the gov. is involved. What I don't understand is why sit around and bitch that someone else is benefiting when anybody can do the same. Its not that difficult and I encourage anyone thinking about it to jump in. There is money to be made just like many other opportunities.

[hillbillyreefer]

That's also new to me.... I thought most are 5 year and some are shorter.

Not around here. I've never had rights to one that was less than 10yrs. Different areas different rules I guess.

[lannie]

Not around here. I've never had rights to one that was less than 10yrs. Different areas different rules I guess.

I have only had 5 and 1 was for 2 years until a couple of conditions were improved.

[hillbillyreefer]

I have only had 5 and 1 was for 2 years until a couple of conditions were improved.

Hmmm, that would make long term planning a bit more troublesome.

[avb3]

Some people like avb3 believe agricultural producers shouldn't make a profit, investing millions in an operation should just be for fun.

Make a profit of public land in excess what it is being leased for? It is being leased to graze cattle. It is not being least so that a small percentage of operators get a windfall from all companies, and the vast majority of grazing leaseholders get nothing.

[avb3]

Precisely. When I am working in the oil industry, I get paid a day rate my first minute of work. Why should negotiations with an oil company be any different? Work to be done elsewhere in a multi million dollar business (farm). Cut into that day, it needs to be paid for

Is that what you tell your bank when you go to negotiate with them? That they have to pay you?

[avb3]

Never heard of this before. I've heard of negotiating payment, but only one deeded land.

It happens regularly on grazing leases.

[lannie]

It happens regularly on grazing leases.

Speculation until you have proof.

[jakebrake]

Leases sell for a fortune because of the free oil lease money,my neighbour makes over $120000.00 a year on his lease I heard some lease holders in southern Alberta make double that.It is time this is changed it can go to hospitals or maybe old age homes and he charges $500.00 to talk to any oil company that wants to meet him and talk about pipelines or new wells.This is better than winning the lottery.

[avb3]

Speculation until you have proof.

PM coming.

[MountainTi]

Is that what you tell your bank when you go to negotiate with them? That they have to pay you?

Actually when I go to a bank to negotiate, I'm the one looking for gain (lower mortgage rates), much as an oil company is negotiating with me for gain (access). Oil company pays me, I pay the bank (scads of interest). :)

[schmedlap]

Not around here. I've never had rights to one that was less than 10yrs. Different areas different rules I guess.

They can be up to 30 years. Depends on type and factors. Yes, different types and areas, different terms. And the below is not "ragging" on you, at all.

All of you who have not done so ... before you go off half-cocked as to what you "have heard" or "understand" just go to Alberta Queens' Printer on the web, go to "laws online" and bring up the actual legislation and regulations in question, and read. The Public Lands Act and the Surface Rights Act, and regulations under each, are what make the rules for all this, period. Neither is particularly difficult to read and understand, nor is it difficult to find the relevant sections pertaining to your issues. Sometimes, reading this stuff, it appears that some people just think this is all stuff made up on the fly as some bureaucrat goes merrily along (?). Now, that "some bureaucrat" may impose his own (usually wrong) interpretation or "policy" (they have nothing better to do?), but that is not the "law". The law on such is these statutes and regulations, right, wrong, or indifferent, and it is just frustrating to read so many opinions that are completely uninformed as to the actual rules. I'm not saying that these laws are always strictly observed by the bureaucracy or adminocrats - in fact they are not. But, they are the laws, and you can enforce them, or lobby for precise changes, if you have the cojones to do so, regardless of what any bureaucrat may desire.

[MountainTi]

Leases sell for a fortune because of the free oil lease money,my neighbour makes over $120000.00 a year on his lease I heard some lease holders in southern Alberta make double that.It is time this is changed it can go to hospitals or maybe old age homes and he charges $500.00 to talk to any oil company that wants to meet him and talk about pipelines or new wells.This is better than winning the lottery.

Surprised everyone hasn't bought a lease if that's the case. Why play the odds with 649 when a lease is surefire money in the jeans

[avb3]

Actually when I go to a bank to negotiate, I'm the one looking for gain (lower mortgage rates), much as an oil company is negotiating with me for gain (access). Oil company pays me, I pay the bank (scads of interest). :)

Apparently Lannie doesn't believe that this happens. Perhaps if he reads your response he'll recognize that it does and is common.

[purgatory.sv]

They can be up to 30 years. Depends on type and factors. Yes, different types and areas, different terms. And the below is not "ragging" on you, at all.

All of you who have not done so ... before you go off half-cocked as to what you "have heard" or "understand" just go to Alberta Queens' Printer on the web, go to "laws online" and bring up the actual legislation and regulations in question, and read. The Public Lands Act and the Surface Rights Act, and regulations under each, are what make the rules for all this, period. Neither is particularly difficult to read and understand, nor is it difficult to find the relevant sections pertaining to your issues. Sometimes, reading this stuff, it appears that some people just think this is all stuff made up on the fly as some bureaucrat goes merrily along (?). Now, that "some bureaucrat" may impose his own (usually wrong) interpretation or "policy" (they have nothing better to do?), but that is not the "law". The law on such is these statutes and regulations, right, wrong, or indifferent, and it is just frustrating to read so many opinions that are completely uninformed as to the actual rules. I'm not saying that these laws are always strictly observed by the bureaucracy or adminocrats - in fact they are not. But, they are the laws, and you can enforce them, or lobby for precise changes, if you have the cojones to do so, regardless of what any bureaucrat may desire.

As an account receivable individual, how do you determine your direction?

[MountainTi]

Apparently Lannie doesn't believe that this happens. Perhaps if he reads your response he'll recognize that it does and is common.

Actually I don't own any lease land, so have never seen it personally. Know many that do but have never heard of it either, but why shouldn't a landowner be paid for his time? So what would be a fair wage for taking up half a days time for say, a ginormous landowner/lease owner to the SE of you a few miles be? I would say $300-$400 for half a days time would be on the low side of what ES's time would be worth. Wouldn't you?

[lannie]

Apparently Lannie doesn't believe that this happens. Perhaps if he reads your response he'll recognize that it does and is common.

I did read the post and thought it was a comparison.

[Purple Farmer]

So it's time for another grazing lease thread.

1. Schmedlap, please stop using knowledge, fact and legislation as this will only cause confusion.:)

2. I am sorry there are so many individuals that think those with a grazing lease are receiving "cowboy" welfare.

3. I am sorry some ***** illegally restricts access to a lease.

4. I am sorry some ***** illegally accesses a lease.

5. There will be no significant changes to the current legislation and before anyone says "don't bet on that", I will happily put my money where my mouth is.

6. The divide that is being created over certain concerns, civil servants with an ego, political gain and special interest group agendas will destroy hunting as Albertans know it if it doesn't stop.

[Ranch11]

It happens regularly on grazing leases.

I'm TOLD a figure, never negotiated one. On deeded land, however, it's a different ballgame.

[OpenRange]

Every time a land agent comes out to negotiate a contract we get like $50. Doesn't matter if he shows up with 10 contracts or 1. This is for deeded or lease contracts, just covers the ranchers time that could have been spent elsewhere. Certainly not getting rich off it. There is a difference between oil on lease land and natural gas on lease land. You make more for oil because they put a high grade road into every well and install power, they also have large trucks driving in frequently which causes more disturbance. Natural gas wells don't pay nearly as much because they get checked like once every say 10 days to 2 weeks in our area, though they do mow the access trails to cut down the fire hazard, but in doing so they take away the grazing of the road allowance, that's where the compensation comes in. If I get $1500 annual compensation for a gas well lease but lose 5 acres of grazing, that's 1 cow less I can graze, cows right now are worth over $2800, the calf at that cows side is worth about $1700. $1500 annual compensation doesn't even cover the loss of grazing and that is before the government gets their cut of the $1500. It's not as rich as everyone seems to think. We had a fire, started by a company mowing road allowances and leave sites. The fire burned 1800 acres of our summer field, it was also all lease land. We can't graze it and have to fence it off for 3 years, we had drought this year which now means I need to keep it fenced out for a forth year. I still pay my lease rental payments to the government. I still have a mortgage on those acres I need to pay without being able to put cattle on it for 4 years to make some money to pay for the mortgage. Makes it hard just to break even. And adds a lot of strain to the operation, take into account we need to supplement our herd because of the loss of grazing with $200 a ton hay, using approximately 10 tons daily, do the math.

[Deer Hunter]

If I get $1500 annual compensation for a gas well lease but lose 5 acres of grazing, that's 1 cow less I can graze, cows right now are worth over $2800, the calf at that cows side is worth about $1700. $1500 annual compensation doesn't even cover the loss of grazing and that is before the government gets their cut of the $1500. It's not as rich as everyone seems to think. .

Most 110 by 110 leases are 3 acres, not 5.

Brings up a good point. If the lessee thinks the grass is worth $1500 per lease or $500/acre when an oil company wants to use it, why is it that the lessee pays so little to the crown on a per year lease rate?

[hillbillyreefer]

Why is it unreasonable for a rancher to be paid for his time? Most of you fine city socialists are paid by the hour, that's OK, but if you are a landowner it's not? It's our business and we will charge for what we want. It's just like the guy in town printing "no hunting" signs, he charges what the market will bare.

[Deer Hunter]

Why is it unreasonable for a rancher to be paid for his time? Most of you fine city socialists are paid by the hour, that's OK, but if you are a landowner it's not? It's our business and we will charge for what we want. It's just like the guy in town printing "no hunting" signs, he charges what the market will bare.

This isn't what the grazing lease issue that the OP and the CBC article has an issue with.
Your derail is a feeble attempt at distraction. The issue is that some lessee's have profited on a situation where it was the grass that was leased for very cheap and then re-leased to oil companies for a tidy profit, all on the back of a crown resource

[hillbillyreefer]

This isn't what the grazing lease issue that the OP and the CBC article has an issue with.
Your derail is a feeble attempt at distraction. The issue is that some lessee's have profited on a situation where it was the grass that was leased for very cheap and then re-leased to oil companies for a tidy profit, all on the back of a crown resource

I didn't derail it, just commenting on what other city folks are enraged about.

You do know that the government is also paid for these leases by the energy company, right?

It's also amusing how you guys can't wait to go after $45 million on a provivincial budget of $50billion. Laughable, the party of the cities will have that wasted in 10min enforcing bill6 .

[avb3]

I didn't derail it, just commenting on what other city folks are enraged about.

You do know that the government is also paid for these leases by the energy company, right?
So is there any reason you would have to object to the government reducing your grazing lease cost by the amount of the lost grass?

In other words, take you as the grazing lease holder completely out of the picture as to getting compensation from the oil companies, but recognizing that you have lost grass that you're paying for and reducing your lease payment accordingly.

[Deer Hunter]

It's our business and we will charge for what we want. .............., he charges what the market will bare.

So your all about what the market will bare when it comes to charging for your time. Fine by me.

I didn't derail it, just commenting on what other city folks are enraged about.

You do know that the government is also paid for these leases by the energy company, right?

Yes and if oil companies set the market for leasing this govt land, then the same lease costs should apply to the grazing lease holder give or take.

Maybe the crown should be charging "what the market will bare" here too, rather then a historic rate and leaving the difference for the leaseholder to make personal profit....

[Deer Hunter]

Do crown grazing rates fluctuate with the cost of hay and cattle?

[avb3]

Do crown grazing rates fluctuate with the cost of hay and cattle?
No they do not.

[hillbillyreefer]

So is there any reason you would have to object to the government reducing your grazing lease cost by the amount of the lost grass?

In other words, take you as the grazing lease holder completely out of the picture as to getting compensation from the oil companies, but recognizing that you have lost grass that you're paying for and reducing your lease payment accordingly.

Why doesn't the government just negotiate a better deal for you taxpayers with energy companies?

It's not the ranchers fault the system has evolved as it has, if the socialists take away the compensation we get, we will find another way to get it. Make whatever adjustments you want. It may be time for a parking fee to walk into the deeded stuff.

[hillbillyreefer]

Do crown grazing rates fluctuate with the cost of hay and cattle?

It's a lease, a contract with duration and costs entered into by your representatives with the lessee. Seems that a lot of the people on here have absolutely no clue, but Bob said it was bad so it is.

How much do some of you think these payment are?

[OpenRange]

Most 110 by 110 leases are 3 acres, not 5.

Brings up a good point. If the lessee thinks the grass is worth $1500 per lease or $500/acre when an oil company wants to use it, why is it that the lessee pays so little to the crown on a per year lease rate?

Yes the lease itself is that size but what you are forgetting is that the access road to the site once it leaves the road allowance is also included in the damages. These damages are paid on 2 factors, loss of use and adverse effects. The reason the leaseholder recieves this and not the government is beacause the province itself suffers no loss of use nor they have to deal with any adverse effects (gates left open or broke, cattle getting out, dust ect). The province already recieves big money from developments on public land by way of land sales for drilling rights, surface access payments and royalties on production. Oil companies long ago found out that it was cheaper and easier to have a yearly damage payment to the leaseholder rather then paying a landman to visit the leaseholder to settle damages on case by case basis.

[avb3]

Why doesn't the government just negotiate a better deal for you taxpayers with energy companies?

It's not the ranchers fault the system has evolved as it has, if the socialists take away the compensation we get, we will find another way to get it. Make whatever adjustments you want. It may be time for a parking fee to walk into the deeded stuff.

Parking fee to walk into the deed of stuff? Nice threat and you know its illegal, as I'll assume you're talking about hunting access.

Prove it you say? They have these things called cameras that record all sorts of stuff nowadays. Of course it's your right to say no to any requests. We get that.

Don't forget, that the grazing leaseholders who get surface disturbance revenues are in the minority of all grazing leaseholders. They yell pretty loud, just like your buddies over at the Alberta beef producers, but the times they are a-changin.

I see you quit completely avoided the question.

Would you object to your lease rate being reduced in proportion to the amount of grass taken out of the lease? In other words, if you are paying $1,000 for the lease, and 10% of it was being used by the oil companies, your payment would be reduced by $100 and only paying 900 for that lease?

What's wrong with that?

[lannie]

Most 110 by 110 leases are 3 acres, not 5.

Brings up a good point. If the lessee thinks the grass is worth $1500 per lease or $500/acre when an oil company wants to use it, why is it that the lessee pays so little to the crown on a per year lease rate?

Because the rancher has to pay for the cow and calf first and there is lots of year left after the cattle need to be off the lease. The grass is not worth much if you can't use it, it is supply and demand.
If you feel it is such a bargain and tunnel to the bank, why don't you go out and buy a lease?
Go buy some cattle and lease some land.... When the cattle need to be off the lease you will need somewhere to put them. Pick up a quarter of irrigated farmland for the rest of the year where you can feed them when you are not growing food for them. Buy your equipment blah blah....
It is an equal opportunity for everybody in the province.
Put your money down.

[lannie]

Parking fee to walk into the deed of stuff? Nice threat and you know its illegal, as I'll assume you're talking about hunting access.

Prove it you say? They have these things called cameras that record all sorts of stuff nowadays. Of course it's your right to say no to any requests. We get that.

Don't forget, that the grazing leaseholders who get surface disturbance revenues are in the minority of all grazing leaseholders. They yell pretty loud, just like your buddies over at the Alberta beef producers, but the times they are a-changin.

I see you quit completely avoided the question.

Would you object to your lease rate being reduced in proportion to the amount of grass taken out of the lease? In other words, if you are paying $1,000 for the lease, and 10% of it was being used by the oil companies, your payment would be reduced by $100 and only paying 900 for that lease?

What's wrong with that?

He said parking fee for the DEEDED land.

[Deer Hunter]

Yes the lease itself is that size but what you are forgetting is that the access road to the site once it leaves the road allowance is also included in the damages. These damages are paid on 2 factors, loss of use and adverse effects. The reason the leaseholder recieves this and not the government is beacause the province itself suffers no loss of use nor they have to deal with any adverse effects (gates left open or broke, cattle getting out, dust ect). The province already recieves big money from developments on public land by way of land sales for drilling rights, surface access payments and royalties on production. Oil companies long ago found out that it was cheaper and easier to have a yearly damage payment to the leaseholder rather then paying a landman to visit the leaseholder to settle damages on case by case basis.

Gotcha.
But for the lessee to pay for the lease is usually based on AUM's (animal unit months,) which is adjusted for the development/graze conditions from time to time.
So with a bunch of development, your annual costs to the crown could go down, and your 500$/acre share of the charges to the oil co skyrocket.
For some, this has been a gravy train. At the expense of taxpayers.

[Deer Hunter]

Because the rancher has to pay for the cow and calf first and there is lots of year left after the cattle need to be off the lease. The grass is not worth much if you can't use it, it is supply and demand.
If you feel it is such a bargain and tunnel to the bank, why don't you go out and buy a lease?
Go buy some cattle and lease some land.... When the cattle need to be off the lease you will need somewhere to put them. Pick up a quarter of irrigated farmland for the rest of the year where you can feed them when you are not growing food for them. Buy your equipment blah blah....
It is an equal opportunity for everybody in the province.
Put your money down.

The same reason you don't go and drill an oil well. But still expect the government to represent you (taxpayer) fairly when it comes to royalties. Its a crown resource, not a free for all.

[avb3]

He said parking fee for the DEEDED land.
It's illegal to charge for access fees for hunting. Disguising it as a parking fee still makes it illegal. And yes I knew he said deeded land and I also know that he said to walk on to it.

I read fine print, whether in or out of contracts. And no I'm not a lawyer.

[hillbillyreefer]

Go ahead and do whatever you need to do. As we saw with bill6 the city guys know what's best for us rural people. Just remember the more urban crap you heap on top of rural people the lower your chances are of being welcomed in the fall.

Like avb3 says, no hunting is better than the alternatives. Enjoy your city.

[HoytCRX32]

So why don't you get in on it if you think its a great deal? Lots of leases for sale, pony up !

"Lease for sale"???

[avb3]

Go ahead and do whatever you need to do. As we saw with bill6 the city guys know what's best for us rural people. Just remember the more urban crap you heap on top of rural people the lower your chances are of being welcomed in the fall.

Like avb3 says, no hunting is better than the alternatives. Enjoy your city.
I live well outside the city. My drive to the nearest grocery store is 35 miles.

[Deer Hunter]

"Lease for sale"???

As a result of some large annual surface lease payments by oil companies, some leases are sold for multiples of these payments as they historically have been a great personal investments. And the price of cattle feed is high.

[hillbillyreefer]

I live well outside the city. My drive to the nearest grocery store is 35 miles.

I know exactly where you live in Alberta. Right now you are living big in Florida whining about Albertans creating global warming while trying to keep warm, and posting about how great heavily subsidized industries such as solar are. Don't forget your hero $4.9 billion dollar Elon musk and his "good" subsidies, but a few Albertans get an oil well and they should be hung, lol.

Your hypocrisy is astounding.

[avb3]

I know exactly where you live in Alberta. Right now you are living big in Florida whining about Albertans creating global warming while trying to keep warm, and posting about how great heavily subsidized industries such as solar are. Don't forget your hero $4.9 billion dollar Elon musk and his "good" subsidies, but a few Albertans get an oil well and they should be hung, lol.

Your hypocrisy is astounding.
Still not answering the question.

Why would you object to a reduction in your grazing lease payment in proportion the amount of land used by a resource company?

After all, you leasing the grazing rights. Not the property rights. That belongs to all Albertans. And all Albertans should benefit from the payments that oil companies make for the use of that land.

You pay less when grass is being used by oil companies, and you still get to use the rest.

There's nothing unfair about that at all.

[CMichaud]

I looked around quickly....I find it fascinating that, in this day and age, the government web site does not seem to list available leases - at least not that I am able to find.

I did find a couple for sale on Kijiji

Great location for Horses or cattle
Government Grazing Lease Aprox 96 acres.
Just renewed another 10 year lease with Alberta Government
Grazing Capacity 25 head could request increase with goverment
1/2 mile south of Edson Golf Coarse Borders Bench Creek 4 wire fence

17 quarters of wonderful ranch land with good feed and water. Two of the quarters are deeded and 15 are long term grazing lease. The grazing lease land is adjacent to the deeded land and is rated for 457 AUM's. A small cabin comes with the deeded land (in photo). The property generates approx. $18,000/yr. from oil surface rights. This land is located about 45 min. SW of Whitecourt, AB.

[hillbillyreefer]

Still not answering the question.

Why would you object to a reduction in your grazing lease payment in proportion the amount of land used by a resource company?

After all, you leasing the grazing rights. Not the property rights. That belongs to all Albertans. And all Albertans should benefit from the payments that oil companies make for the use of that land.

You pay less when grass is being used by oil companies, and you still get to use the rest.

There's nothing unfair about that at all.

You missed the small print where I said "go ahead and do whatever you need to do"

We have no property rights in Canada, I'm sure that makes you jump for joy.

[hillbillyreefer]

I looked around quickly....I find it fascinating that, in this day and age, the government web site does not seem to list available leases - at least not that I am able to find.

I did find a couple for sale on Kijiji

Great location for Horses or cattle
Government Grazing Lease Aprox 96 acres.
Just renewed another 10 year lease with Alberta Government
Grazing Capacity 25 head could request increase with goverment
1/2 mile south of Edson Golf Coarse Borders Bench Creek 4 wire fence

17 quarters of wonderful ranch land with good feed and water. Two of the quarters are deeded and 15 are long term grazing lease. The grazing lease land is adjacent to the deeded land and is rated for 457 AUM's. A small cabin comes with the deeded land (in photo). The property generates approx. $18,000/yr. from oil surface rights. This land is located about 45 min. SW of Whitecourt, AB.

There is the opportunity for the easy money you guys are all talking about. I expect those ads to be taken down by dark tomorrow night they are such a good deal.:thinking-006:

[hillbillyreefer]

If it really is all about the money, why doesn't the province lease the hunting rights to outfitters on crown land, think of the money that would bring into the socialist coffers.

[lannie]

As a result of some large annual surface lease payments by oil companies, some leases are sold for multiples of these payments as they historically have been a great personal investments. And the price of cattle feed is high.

So why don't you buy one?? If its such a great deal.....

The leases are sold for as much as a buyer is willing to pay.

[avb3]

You missed the small print where I said "go ahead and do whatever you need to do"

We have no property rights in Canada, I'm sure that makes you jump for joy.
You're right, technically, Trudeau the First made sure that property rights were not in the Constitution.

However, you didn't answer whether you think it is fair.

[Scott h]

Quote by Okatokian;
"I own rental property. If there is ever compensation for city-caused disruption or expropriation, I guess my renters will get the money, not me."

That pretty much sums it up right there. Not to many rational people would agree that should happen, but when it comes to leasing government owned land for the purpose of grazing it gets VERY confusing. Somewhere along the road it turned into virtually owning the land instead of what it is (the right to graze cattle on the grass).
If this government does nothing else but re-think the grazing lease system they will gain much deserved admiration.

__________________

[Clarksen]

It's hard to imagine there are people like lannie and hillbully controlling public land here in Alberta. How in h... did things get so out of whack?

[avb3]

It's hard to imagine there are people like lannie and hillbully controlling public land here in Alberta. How in h... did things get so out of whack?
It's that sense of entitlement that has permeated some grazing leaseholders.

It's a same sense of entitlement that they would despise if held by anyone else.

[hillbillyreefer]

It's hard to imagine there are people like lannie and hillbully controlling public land here in Alberta. How in h... did things get so out of whack?

That's rich. Countless anti farmer, anti lease holder threads on here and I'm the bully.

Would several million urban folks going after a few leaseholders not fit the bully definition a bit better?

[MK2750]

You folks arguing is causing nothing but hard feelings.

There is no doubt the government should not be leasing land that is turning a large profit for an individual when he sublets or claims damages to land he doesn't own.

There is also no doubt that someone receiving nice payments, just for holding a lease, will be too happy about giving that up.

The funny part is that many lease holders do not receive these payments and ultimately pay more to graze their cattle than someone a couple of miles away.

Perhaps the fair thing to do is lease the lands for so much a useable acre and put the money received from oil companies into one pot. Lease holders could then apply for reasonable compensation if there are added expenses relating to oil field use.

Some of the money could be used to compensate lease holders that improve habitat for wildlife and provide access for recreational purposes with out all the BS we hear about every year.

The rest of the money could be used for added law enforcement and proper management of the lease land.

The lease holder wins with cheap grazing and (considering so many are good stewards of the environment and do allow easy access) a bonus cheque.

The public wins with easy access to recreational land. (which should be the case anyway)

The government wins by getting some added revenue to pay for wildlife and land management that just never seems to be in the budget.

[avb3]

That's rich. Countless anti farmer, anti lease holder threads on here and I'm the bully.

Would several million urban folks going after a few leaseholders not fit the bully definition a bit better?
Now it's the "woe be me, I'm the victim" syndrome.

Priceless.

[BlackHeart]

It's hard to imagine there are people like lannie and hillbully controlling public land here in Alberta. How in h... did things get so out of whack?

The moment that the Govt allowed the sale of grazing leases, the whole issue started heading down the toilet.

The sale of leases created an asset in the holder of leases. Probably because there was significant value beyond the amount that was paid to the govt for the lease rights......probably the rate was much better than what would have been paid in an open market for grazing from a private owned pasture.

Now there is the claim to the dugouts and fences that are put up to facilitate the grazing. But the fences are a perishable commodity that depletes over time without maintenance. This is where the govt really messed up. They should have contracted to have the dugouts and fences put up at the Govt expense......just like any landlord would invest in reno's that improve the market rental rate of his property.

Then the govt could have put these GRAZING RIGHTS ONLY leases in (reasonable size blocks) up for open bids each year or 5 years and the highest bidder gets to use the grazing to make a profit. The free market will determine the correct value of this based on the ability of the business owner to make a profit and on competition for this profit. If they can't make a profit on this grazing, then the price will end up going to the level where the profit is possible.

Now just like any landlord, the lease should have a requirement for maintaining the property. If you rent a house, there is a level of maintenance that is expected. Maintaining the fences and return the property to the Govt in the condition you took it, is not that hard of a concept. The leaseholder just has to factor this into his cost of using this lease. BUT....there is no ownership of improvements concept started.

Everybody wins.........well except maybe the rancher may not like the exposure to the free market and the increased costs.

Now as to the revenue from Oil and Gas........
If you rent a house or apartment or most other commercial property, there is a long list of clauses as to what is acceptable use.....anything beyond this is not allowed or must be approved by the owner.

The clause that is in most agreements is about subletting. It is not allowed in most cases. No one want to rent to an unknown......and lose control of who in on their property. So its, simple, there should be no subletting without going through the Govt. Annnnnnddd, like any landlord, the premium for this subletting if approved goes to the owner of the land.

SO....the really problem came about because in the mind of the grazing leaseholders, THEY have an asset that THEY BELEIVE they are entitled to control and profit from........outside of grazing cattle.

It is also what is causing the hunting access issue.

[hopper146]

The money isn't resource revenue. I wish everyone would stop referring to it in that way. It is compensation for loss of use and the adverse effects and disruption to the leaseholder caused by oil and gas activity. They build a road into the well, mow the road allowance which is now useless for grazing and mow the entire leases in most cases. I still have to pay for those acres in my lease agreement with the province. As well I had to pay for those acres when I purchased the lease from the previous owner. The province thinking they will receive those damages is idiotic. The oil/gas companies must be licking their chops waiting for this, the first thing they will do is stop paying because the province isn't incurring any damages, the leaseholder is. They will challenge that in court and win, no doubt. The province cannot prove loss of use to itself because they aren't actually using the property, it's just sitting there. If you think the companies won't do that I can think of 45 million reasons they would. Also the province takes about 20% of the damages in taxation and also receive their own substantial revenue from wells. Point being the government would have to open the Surface Rights Act to amend the legislation and that would open up the whole act to possible industry challenges, and with depressed energy revenues for companies, expect a fight.

Then maybe you should just purchase land? Then you may do as you wish with it.

[hopper146]

I know our payments for our lease land compared to our deeded land is waaaaaaaay less. One grazing lease has two oil leases on it, one active and abandoned. 2500$ a yr. and it'll be less this year I'm sure. The other lease has zero oil leases on it. That 2500$ doesn't even cover wages to maintain fences on it.

Then release the land and buy your own. No?

[saddleup]

I cant believe these Grazing lease posts.............. cant you guys get it that the guy that has a grazing lease most likely owns DEEDED land too. A lot of these fellow are also fellow hunters, so go ahead, keep bickering, and we most likely will loose the privilege of accessing the DEEDED land too. Some people just don't get it. Keep poking the bear..... your gonna get bitten.

[hillbillyreefer]

Now it's the "woe be me, I'm the victim" syndrome.

Priceless.

No Andy I was called a bully and responded.

There isn't anyone on this board that goes after more Albertan's livelyhoods than you. Constantly attacking our energy producers and feeding us a pretty steady diet of anti agriculture topics too.

[hillbillyreefer]

Then maybe you should just purchase land? Then you may do as you wish with it.

Then let's put the leases up for sale, then all you concerned urbanites can buy your own little piece of paradise and live high on the hog.

[Matt L.]

I cant believe these Grazing lease posts.............. cant you guys get it that the guy that has a grazing lease most likely owns DEEDED land too. A lot of these fellow are also fellow hunters, so go ahead, keep bickering, and we most likely will loose the privilege of accessing the DEEDED land too. Some people just don't get it. Keep poking the bear..... your gonna get bitten.

Agree wholeheartedly. Always amazes me to see the jealousy and even downright hatred there is for farmers and ranchers on this board.

[Deer Hunter]

Its easy to see who is personally making a significant profit off of a public resource here

[Matt L.]

Its easy to see who is personally making a significant profit off of a public resource here

You mean like oil and gas companies?

[avb3]

I cant believe these Grazing lease posts.............. cant you guys get it that the guy that has a grazing lease most likely owns DEEDED land too. A lot of these fellow are also fellow hunters, so go ahead, keep bickering, and we most likely will loose the privilege of accessing the DEEDED land too. Some people just don't get it. Keep poking the bear..... your gonna get bitten.
Do you want to talk about the ratio of deeded to lease land that exists on some of the large spreads down south?

What is the minimum amount of deeded land required? (Generally 1/4 section)

What is the maximum amount of land that can be leased for grazing? (Unlimited, but generally restricted to 600 AUM)

[Okotokian]

I cant believe these Grazing lease posts.............. cant you guys get it that the guy that has a grazing lease most likely owns DEEDED land too. A lot of these fellow are also fellow hunters, so go ahead, keep bickering, and we most likely will loose the privilege of accessing the DEEDED land too. Some people just don't get it. Keep poking the bear..... your gonna get bitten.

I think that is a separate issue. I don't advocate letting SOME leaseholders skim unreasonable profits from public land in the hopes that they just MIGHT let me hunt on their land. Plenty of experience here on the forum to show leaseholders often don't let us on leased land they are legally obligated to grant permission on, never mind their deed land. Nobody is expecting or demanding farmers and ranchers to give permission on their deeded land. That's THEIR land. Leased land is OUR land.

Here's a question I have that I honestly don't know the answer to: when you rent land from other farmers to plant a crop, or run cattle on, do the renting farmers/ranchers get all the revenue from that land that may accrue from other sources? I'm guessing not many landowners sign on for that one.

I would also not characterize the discussion here as criticizing farmers and ranchers. I'm criticizing THE GOVERNMENT for allowing such a system to exist. I don't blame ranchers for taking advantage of it. I would if I were them. They're not evil or doing anything underhanded.

[saddleup]

You Sir have no idea what you are taking about. end of discussion

[avb3]

Then let's put the leases up for sale, then all you concerned urbanites can buy your own little piece of paradise and live high on the hog.
You forget, it is public land.

I'm well aware that there are numerous grazing leaseholders moving itching to buy that land for decades.

I'm also well aware that even 15 years ago the Alberta said no resoundingly to any sale of public land.

[avb3]

You Sir have no idea what you are taking about. end of discussion
Read the legislation.

[Akoch]

Most 110 by 110 leases are 3 acres, not 5.

Brings up a good point. If the lessee thinks the grass is worth $1500 per lease or $500/acre when an oil company wants to use it, why is it that the lessee pays so little to the crown on a per year lease rate?
Excellent question.

[BlackHeart]

I cant believe these Grazing lease posts.............. cant you guys get it that the guy that has a grazing lease most likely owns DEEDED land too. A lot of these fellow are also fellow hunters, so go ahead, keep bickering, and we most likely will loose the privilege of accessing the DEEDED land too. Some people just don't get it. Keep poking the bear..... your gonna get bitten.

You know this comment is quite ironic.

I have posted before that, as more and more ranchers play access games with hunters trying to access crown land under grazing leases, that the sentiment against the ranchers would turn.

As more and more ranchers take the attitude that the leased land is rightfully theirs.....does the Bundy gang sound familiar.......the less and less support in their corner they would have.

And when they need those hunters, that they played hard-to-access games with, on what is really the public/crown's land, to defend them and support them against the govt's insatiable need for more revenue, there would be no one there.

And that those that felt they got a run-around or seen the BS that was played to deny access, they would in-fact side with the govt and add fuel to the fire.

You are the one who kept poking the bear........and this sentiment is the result..........there is a good possibility your not just going to get a bite, but loose an arm and leg. Especially if you keep threatening more limited access and digging you heels in on the idea that O&G revenue of 45million is rightfully yours for the paltry 4mill in grazing lease payments. But like any stubborn gambler, they can't walk away from the table with any loss......until they gamble and lose it all.

[Clarksen]

You know this comment is quite ironic.

I have posted before that, as more and more ranchers play access games with hunters trying to access crown land under grazing leases, that the sentiment against the ranchers would turn.

As more and more ranchers take the attitude that the leased land is rightfully theirs.....does the Bundy gang sound familiar.......the less and less support in their corner they would have.

And when they need those hunters, that they played hard-to-access games with, on what is really the public/crown's land, to defend them and support them against the govt's insatiable need for more revenue, there would be no one there.

And that those that felt they got a run-around or seen the BS that was played to deny access, they would in-fact side with the govt and add fuel to the fire.

You are the one who kept poking the bear........and this sentiment is the result..........there is a good possibility your not just going to get a bite, but loose an arm and leg. Especially if you keep threatening more limited access and digging you heels in on the idea that O&G revenue of 45million is rightfully yours for the paltry 4mill in grazing lease payments. But like any stubborn gambler, they can't walk away from the table with any loss......until they gamble and lose it all.Hopefully justice will prevail....and they do lose it all!

[avb3]

You know this comment is quite ironic.

I have posted before that, as more and more ranchers play access games with hunters trying to access crown land under grazing leases, that the sentiment against the ranchers would turn.

As more and more ranchers take the attitude that the leased land is rightfully theirs.....does the Bundy gang sound familiar.......the less and less support in their corner they would have.

And when they need those hunters, that they played hard-to-access games with, on what is really the public/crown's land, to defend them and support them against the govt's insatiable need for more revenue, there would be no one there.

And that those that felt they got a run-around or seen the BS that was played to deny access, they would in-fact side with the govt and add fuel to the fire.

You are the one who kept poking the bear........and this sentiment is the result..........there is a good possibility your not just going to get a bite, but loose an arm and leg. Especially if you keep threatening more limited access and digging you heels in on the idea that O&G revenue of 45million is rightfully yours for the paltry 4mill in grazing lease payments. But like any stubborn gambler, they can't walk away from the table with any loss......until they gamble and lose it all.


You nailed it.

30 years ago hunters pushed for Buck for Wildlife funds to pay farmers to keep land in habitat. The hope was that it would increase access for hunters. It didn't.

20 years ago hunters had a program that put placemats in the white zone in restaurants for free which encouraged hunters to ask for access on both deeded and grazing land. The hope was that it would increase access for hunters. It didn't.

15 years ago hunters lobbied and concurred with farmers that they get landowner tags to hunt deer in the hope that there would be increased access for hunters. That never happened.

10 years ago hunters work hard with government to find an equitable way to obtain access to public lands under grazing lease, in the hope that increase taxes would also happen on deeded land. It didn't happen.

If those ranchers and farmers think that hunters feel they've being burned just a little bit too much by the agriculture community whenever they have tried to deal with access, they are right. The time for going kissy kissy has passed.

What is interesting is that is those farmers and ranchers who get revenue from surface disturbances are often the ones to scream the loudest. Getting access on land that is deeded is often easier than that which is leased. The sense of entitlement is not there with the majority of farmers and ranchers.

Just those that like their cowboy welfare.

[Matt L.]

Fight on gentlemen, maybe someday everyone is gonna realise that in the game of revenge no one wins.

[mich]

You nailed it.

30 years ago hunters pushed for Buck for Wildlife funds to pay farmers to keep land in habitat. The hope was that it would increase access for hunters. It didn't.

20 years ago hunters had a program that put placemats in the white zone in restaurants for free which encouraged hunters to ask for access on both deeded and grazing land. The hope was that it would increase access for hunters. It didn't.

15 years ago hunters lobbied and concurred with farmers that they get landowner tags to hunt deer in the hope that there would be increased access for hunters. That never happened.

10 years ago hunters work hard with government to find an equitable way to obtain access to public lands under grazing lease, in the hope that increase taxes would also happen on deeded land. It didn't happen.

If those ranchers and farmers think that hunters feel they've being burned just a little bit too much by the agriculture community whenever they have tried to deal with access, they are right. The time for going kissy kissy has passed.

What is interesting is that is those farmers and ranchers who get revenue from surface disturbances are often the ones to scream the loudest. Getting access on land that is deeded is often easier than that which is leased. The sense of entitlement is not there with the majority of farmers and ranchers.

Just those that like their cowboy welfare.

30 years ago we spent 2-3000 dollars to repair damage from hunters/trespassers

20 years ago we spent 6-7000 to repair damage from hunters/trespassers

10 years ago we spent 10-12000 to repair damage from hunters/trespassers

this year we are over 15000 and not finished yet

What is interesting is the peasants that scream the loudest are usually the worst offenders and think they are entitled to go where they please whether the land is deeded or leased and have no respect for anyone or anything. I think hunting licences should be bumped up to say... 2500 for the city idiots to cover the costs of their hobby....

[Redfrog]

Lakota tribal wisdom states that when you discover you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount. However, in other affairs, we often try other strategies, including the following:

A. buy a stronger whip
B. change riders
C. say things like “this is the way we always have ridden this horse”
D. appoint a committee to study the horse
E. arrange to visit other sites to see how they ride dead horses
F. create a training session to increase our riding abilities
G. harness several dead horses together for increased speed
H. declare that “No horse is too dead to beat”
I. provide additional funding to increase the horse’s performance
J. declare the horse is “better, faster, and cheaper” dead
K. study alternative uses for dead horses
L. promote the dead horse to a supervisory position

The list goes on and on, but I think you get the idea….

[MountainTi]

I live well outside the city. My drive to the nearest grocery store is 35 miles.

You should try spewing all your agriculture and oil industry hate in your local BV saloon rather than on a keyboard, I know a few local boys there who would love to indulge you in that conversation. that is when you're not jetsetting across the continent.

[MountainTi]

Then let's put the leases up for sale, then all you concerned urbanites can buy your own little piece of paradise and live high on the hog.

You have the patience of a saint hillbilly, I tip my hat to you

[Sneeze]

It would have been much easier had some leaseholders not spent the last 25 years spitting all over hunters trying to access public land.

They would then have an ally for this review.

Instead they were greedy, and outdoorsmen are not standing with them to face the NDP tax grab machine.

Sad to say, leaseholders made their bed. Lay in it.

[avb3]

You should try spewing all your agriculture and oil industry hate in your local BV saloon rather than on a keyboard, I know a few local boys there who would love to indulge you in that conversation. that is when you're not jetsetting across the continent.
I probably hunt on their land. With permission ;)

[avb3]

30 years ago we spent 2-3000 dollars to repair damage from hunters/trespassers

20 years ago we spent 6-7000 to repair damage from hunters/trespassers

10 years ago we spent 10-12000 to repair damage from hunters/trespassers

this year we are over 15000 and not finished yet

What is interesting is the peasants that scream the loudest are usually the worst offenders and think they are entitled to go where they please whether the land is deeded or leased and have no respect for anyone or anything. I think hunting licences should be bumped up to say... 2500 for the city idiots to cover the costs of their hobby....
I think it is criminal and disgusting that trespassers caused you those problems. Was anyone convicted?

They should be.

[MountainTi]

I probably hunt on their land. With permission ;)

And when gaining permission for access, I bet you are pretty straight up with letting your ideologys be known ;)
I can pass it on to some of the locals for ya if it would be helpful :)

[MountainTi]

Why is it unreasonable for a rancher to be paid for his time? Most of you fine city socialists are paid by the hour, that's OK, but if you are a landowner it's not? It's our business and we will charge for what we want. It's just like the guy in town printing "no hunting" signs, he charges what the market will bare.


I can see prices increasing steadily

[BlackHeart]

I think it is criminal and disgusting that trespassers caused you those problems. Was anyone convicted?

They should be.

He's probably talking about repairs to permanently locked gates on leased land and across road allowances.

And calculated at his O&G negoatsheating discussion meeting raate of $500/hr.

$15,000 buys a long stretch of barb wire to encircle quite a vast expanse of the truth.

[hal53]

He's probably talking about repairs to permanently locked gates on leased land and across road allowances.

And calculated at his O&G negoatsheating discussion meeting raate of $500/hr.

$15,000 buys a long stretch of barb wire to encircle quite a vast expanse of the truth.
Lot of "guessing" in this post..:thinking-006:

[BlackHeart]

Lot of "guessing" in this post..:thinking-006:

Perhaps..........perhaps not.

http://www.ufa.com/products/product.html?open&/products/barbed-wire-1-4-mile

$ 15,000 / ($75/ quarter mile spool) = 200
200spools x 1/4mile = 50miles
50miles / 3 strand fence = 16.67 miles
16 miles encircles 4 sq miles
4 sq miles is 16 sections of land
16 sections is 10,000 acres

$15,000 is enough barb wire to encircle 10,000 acres with a new wire 3 strand fence

If he's talking about repairs, I assume the posts are still there from the wantant destruction he claims has occurred.

The above was just for fun, as I know it's not that simple.
But if he can stretch the truth, I can take some liberties in my response.

[muskrat]

Yes there seems to be millions involved and the more digging that is done the number keeps going up... I believe the rents need to be fair, the rental terms reflect the owners rights and O&G monies outed. I have had exposure to both O&G and aggies/ranchers on leases and my experience said the O&G did a better job of looking after the land during and after use. Sometimes I get the impression that this is still the wild west. And oh yes I will continue lobbying the government to fix this mess and bring it up to 21st century logic and reasoning. Just saying....

[HoytCRX32]

The moment that the Govt allowed the sale of grazing leases, the whole issue started heading down the toilet.

The sale of leases created an asset in the holder of leases. Probably because there was significant value beyond the amount that was paid to the govt for the lease rights......probably the rate was much better than what would have been paid in an open market for grazing from a private owned pasture.

Now there is the claim to the dugouts and fences that are put up to facilitate the grazing. But the fences are a perishable commodity that depletes over time without maintenance. This is where the govt really messed up. They should have contracted to have the dugouts and fences put up at the Govt expense......just like any landlord would invest in reno's that improve the market rental rate of his property.

Then the govt could have put these GRAZING RIGHTS ONLY leases in (reasonable size blocks) up for open bids each year or 5 years and the highest bidder gets to use the grazing to make a profit. The free market will determine the correct value of this based on the ability of the business owner to make a profit and on competition for this profit. If they can't make a profit on this grazing, then the price will end up going to the level where the profit is possible.

Now just like any landlord, the lease should have a requirement for maintaining the property. If you rent a house, there is a level of maintenance that is expected. Maintaining the fences and return the property to the Govt in the condition you took it, is not that hard of a concept. The leaseholder just has to factor this into his cost of using this lease. BUT....there is no ownership of improvements concept started.

Everybody wins.........well except maybe the rancher may not like the exposure to the free market and the increased costs.

Now as to the revenue from Oil and Gas........
If you rent a house or apartment or most other commercial property, there is a long list of clauses as to what is acceptable use.....anything beyond this is not allowed or must be approved by the owner.

The clause that is in most agreements is about subletting. It is not allowed in most cases. No one want to rent to an unknown......and lose control of who in on their property. So its, simple, there should be no subletting without going through the Govt. Annnnnnddd, like any landlord, the premium for this subletting if approved goes to the owner of the land.

SO....the really problem came about because in the mind of the grazing leaseholders, THEY have an asset that THEY BELEIVE they are entitled to control and profit from........outside of grazing cattle.

It is also what is causing the hunting access issue.

Beautifully stated!

[mich]

He's probably talking about repairs to permanently locked gates on leased land and across road allowances.

And calculated at his O&G negoatsheating discussion meeting raate of $500/hr.

$15,000 buys a long stretch of barb wire to encircle quite a vast expanse of the truth.

Sorry, private land. I know in your world labour and equipment is free but not in mine

Perhaps..........perhaps not.

http://www.ufa.com/products/product.html?open&/products/barbed-wire-1-4-mile

$ 15,000 / ($75/ quarter mile spool) = 200
200spools x 1/4mile = 50miles
50miles / 3 strand fence = 16.67 miles
16 miles encircles 4 sq miles
4 sq miles is 16 sections of land
16 sections is 10,000 acres

$15,000 is enough barb wire to encircle 10,000 acres with a new wire 3 strand fence

If he's talking about repairs, I assume the posts are still there from the wantant destruction he claims has occurred.

The above was just for fun, as I know it's not that simple.
But if he can stretch the truth, I can take some liberties in my response.

You should have stated "the above proves I'm clueless"

How big is a section of land?????? I guess that your ndp math applies to all your other figures as well....

[Clarksen]

30 years ago we spent 2-3000 dollars to repair damage from hunters/trespassers

20 years ago we spent 6-7000 to repair damage from hunters/trespassers

10 years ago we spent 10-12000 to repair damage from hunters/trespassers

this year we are over 15000 and not finished yet

What is interesting is the peasants that scream the loudest are usually the worst offenders and think they are entitled to go where they please whether the land is deeded or leased and have no respect for anyone or anything. I think hunting licences should be bumped up to say... 2500 for the city idiots to cover the costs of their hobby....Could you fill us in on what happened and why in 10 year increments. Where do you live? Why no publicity? I've lived on a farm surrounded by lease land all my life and have never heard of something like this. Unless you can give some facts and figures I think I'll just call it BS.

[Sneeze]

Could you fill us in on what happened and why in 10 year increments. Where do you live? Why no publicity? I've lived on a farm surrounded by lease land all my life and have never heard of something like this. Unless you can give some facts and figures I think I'll just call it BS.

He parks his Lambo on the lease and somebody shot off a mirror.

[Looper]

Sorry, private land. I know in your world labour and equipment is free but not in mine



You should have stated "the above proves I'm clueless"

How big is a section of land?????? I guess that your ndp math applies to all your other figures as well....

Is a section not 1 square mile? Math looks bang on to me.

Looper

[Purple Farmer]

Just stop guys, this has nowhere positive to go for anyone.

[avb3]

Is a section not 1 square mile? Math looks bang on to me.

Looper
His math was wrong. One section=640 acres=1 sq mile=4 miles of fencing.

4 sections=640*4=2560 acres. 4 sections=8 miles of fencing (2 miles by 2 miles)

He may have confused quarters with sections. 4 sections=16 quarters

[Sledhead71]

Ridiculous that these threads bashing the hand that feeds our outdoor community continue to assist in eroding our heritage on an OUTDOOR forum.

Religion, politics, FN, ext have had the hammer dropped and members warned or banned, but we persist in degrading those who allow us access for the passion we support seemingly with-out any consequences.

What the heck is wrong with those who constantly want to attack the very root of our future ?

Does there need to be a review of the leases presently occupied in Alberta ? I would say yes, but let those interest groups and legislators work these compensations out and leave the personal attacks and bickering out of this.

[Deer Hunter]

Ridiculous that these threads bashing the hand that feeds our outdoor community continue to assist in eroding our heritage on an OUTDOOR forum.

Religion, politics, FN, ext have had the hammer dropped and members warned or banned, but we persist in degrading those who allow us access for the passion we support seemingly with-out any consequences.

What the heck is wrong with those who constantly want to attack the very root of our future ?

Does there need to be a review of the leases presently occupied in Alberta ? I would say yes, but let those interest groups and legislators work these compensations out and leave the personal attacks and bickering out of this.

This is an important issue that affects a select few leaseholders and a lot of tax paying Albertans. These are not personal attacks however those that have benefitted from crown leases claim it is as part of their distraction defense

[avb3]

Ridiculous that these threads bashing the hand that feeds our outdoor community continue to assist in eroding our heritage on an OUTDOOR forum.

Religion, politics, FN, ext have had the hammer dropped and members warned or banned, but we persist in degrading those who allow us access for the passion we support seemingly with-out any consequences.

What the heck is wrong with those who constantly want to attack the very root of our future ?

Does there need to be a review of the leases presently occupied in Alberta ? I would say yes, but let those interest groups and legislators work these compensations out and leave the personal attacks and bickering out of this.
Being opposed to a policy and wanting to see it changed is not personally attacking anyone.

As you can see by this thread, those that are benefiting from the existing situation are the ones that are screaming the loudest. There have been veiled threats to individuals and to groups.

Not exactly a cerebral way of discussing the issue.

[Sledhead71]

This is an important issue that affects a select few leaseholders and a lot of tax paying Albertans. These are not personal attacks however those that have benefitted from crown leases claim it is as part of their distraction defense

Of course this is an important issue, but these discussion do more harm than good for our community. So why allow any topic that erodes our heritage to be debated on a forum specifically for the outdoor personalities is beyond me.

Carry on people.

[Deer Hunter]

erodes our heritage.

some parts of our "heritage" need more than just erosion

[HoytCRX32]

Being opposed to a policy and wanting to see it changed is not personally attacking anyone.

As you can see by this thread, those that are benefiting from the existing situation are the ones that are screaming the loudest. There have been veiled threats to individuals and to groups.

Not exactly a cerebral way of discussing the issue.

I tend to agree with AVI on this one...seems some want to make this a "city versus country" argument when it is nothing of the sort.

[hal53]

I tend to agree with AVI on this one...seems some want to make this a "city versus country" argument when it is nothing of the sort.
Then attack the policy, not a few individuals that are receiving some benefits from the policy as it is now written. As usual on here, a discussion like this gets de railed by a few who get wound up that somebody other than them is getting a perceived special treatment. Pretty sad......

[FCLightning]

His math was wrong. One section=640 acres=1 sq mile=4 miles of fencing.

4 sections=640*4=2560 acres. 4 sections=8 miles of fencing (2 miles by 2 miles)

He may have confused quarters with sections. 4 sections=16 quarters

That is not the mistake he made. His math is right and the verbiage is wrong. He said 4 sq miles when what he meant was that 16 miles of fence would surround 4 miles square - or 16 sections of land.

[Redfrog]

That is not the mistake he made. His math is right and the verbiage is wrong. He said 4 sq miles when what he meant was that 16 miles of fence would surround 4 miles square - or 16 sections of land.

Well dang. two of us got it.LOL:)

4 sq miles is not the same as 4 miles square.

Hal nailed it, it is always some one else who is a greedy SOB, whether it's a rancher, outfitter, rigpig, union guy, non union guy. as long as he is getting something some one else isn't there's someone whining.

Someone hates guns, wants no one to own one. Hates ATVs, no one should own one. Restrict access to this and that because 'they' don't have it.

What a bunch of crybabies.

If the lease system need review then let the people that have some expertise deal with it. I'll bet most of the people expressing an opinion about what needs to be done, have never stepped in Cow ****. They sure have little or no working knowledge of how the lease system works.

[sjd]

The link to the original study described in the article here, if folks want to get educated on how the system works

http://www.albertalandinstitute.ca/public/download/documents/14873

Note Saskatchewan has a system whereby ranchers are fairly compensated but the majority of revenue goes to the public.

Dubious payments to some ranchers - note the study says 30% of leases collect 93% of the revenue have got nothing to do with Alberta's outdoors heritage, but nice try.

[avb3]

The link to the original study described in the article here, if folks want to get educated on how the system works

http://www.albertalandinstitute.ca/public/download/documents/14873

Note Saskatchewan has a system whereby ranchers are fairly compensated but the majority of revenue goes to the public.

Dubious payments to some ranchers - note the study says 30% of leases collect 93% of the revenue have got nothing to do with Alberta's outdoors heritage, but nice try.
Aw, you threw facts into the situation. Some would rather deal with emotion.

[Kanonfodder]

AVB3 their study is a paper its hardly fact. The fact is its based on hypothetical asswertions such as $1500 per wellsite, what may have been from the 1998 Thurber Study and what might have been had 1999's Bill 31 been proclaimed

[avb3]

AVB3 their study is a paper its hardly fact. The fact is its based on hypothetical asswertions such as $1500 per wellsite, what may have been from the 1998 Thurber Study and what might have been had 1999's Bill 31 been proclaimed
My expirence is that $1500 is low, but that may vary depending on what part of the province it is.

[Deer Hunter]

Well dang. two of us got it.LOL:)

4 sq miles is not the same as 4 miles square.

Hal nailed it, it is always some one else who is a greedy SOB, whether it's a rancher, outfitter, rigpig, union guy, non union guy. as long as he is getting something some one else isn't there's someone whining.

Someone hates guns, wants no one to own one. Hates ATVs, no one should own one. Restrict access to this and that because 'they' don't have it.

What a bunch of crybabies.

If the lease system need review then let the people that have some expertise deal with it. I'll bet most of the people expressing an opinion about what needs to be done, have never stepped in Cow ****. They sure have little or no working knowledge of how the lease system works.

What a waste of time and typing. Do you not have anything better to do? Of course not.

[muskrat]

Perhaps somewhere in the grazing lease holders there is a "plunderbund - a league of commercial , political or financial interests that exploit the public"
The Golden Rule - equal rights to all and special privileges to none.
Also good on the NDP government of the day to have the interest to take on the powerful familys/people which have run the show for far too long. Hope they dont drag out the process like Bill 6.
Gotta go, tee time shortly.

[Clarksen]

Red Frog - How about me, can I comment legitimately? I have lived on a farm all my life, my brother has lease land, I am surrounded by lease land, I know several lease holders personally, I know how the system works, I knew the public lands man until he quit in disgust, and i see the abuse both to the environment and public on an almost daily basis.

Albertans are getting royally screwed!

[mich]

His math was wrong. One section=640 acres=1 sq mile=4 miles of fencing.

4 sections=640*4=2560 acres. 4 sections=8 miles of fencing (2 miles by 2 miles)

He may have confused quarters with sections. 4 sections=16 quarters

Yep

Is a section not 1 square mile? Math looks bang on to me.

Looper

NDP supporter?

He parks his Lambo on the lease and somebody shot off a mirror.

Close

Could you fill us in on what happened and why in 10 year increments. Where do you live? Why no publicity? I've lived on a farm surrounded by lease land all my life and have never heard of something like this. Unless you can give some facts and figures I think I'll just call it BS.

I can go back many more years or year by year if you would like. Next year come sit up on the ridge and watch the parade, Gates, Fences, Land, Equipment...They all fix themselves. I'll call BS on you never hearing about this stuff

[Kanonfodder]

My expirence is that $1500 is low, but that may vary depending on what part of the province it is.

It's way high actually

[lannie]

It's way high actually

My actual check cashing experience is it is way high too. I get 100.00/year.

[Clarksen]

Yep



NDP supporter?



Close



I can go back many more years or year by year if you would like. Next year come sit up on the ridge and watch the parade, Gates, Fences, Land, Equipment...They all fix themselves. I'll call BS on you never hearing about this stuffJust what I thought! Your cows can fly too!

[mich]

Just what I thought! Your cows can fly too!

Only in your world

[Redfrog]

Red Frog - How about me, can I comment legitimately? I have lived on a farm all my life, my brother has lease land, I am surrounded by lease land, I know several lease holders personally, I know how the system works, I knew the public lands man until he quit in disgust, and i see the abuse both to the environment and public on an almost daily basis.

Albertans are getting royally screwed!

It's not up to me to babysit who can say what on this board. They have moderators doing that thankless job.

IMHO it sounds like you have some legit input, which is exactly what I said in my post. I don't care who you agree with as long as your opinion is based on some idea of what is going on.

Too often on this forum the ones who make the most noise have the least amount of knowledge about the issue.

Before anyone gets their feelers in twist I don't go to a mechanic for his medical opinion.

And Deer Hunter, do you know how to use the ignore function?

[Clarksen]

Only in your worldOK, lets see where all the money went. 37,000$ in damages with more before and still not finished after all the bloodshed last fall, so about 50,000$ those nasty Albertans caused you. Give us an accounting of damages, repairs, costs. You may have suffered some damage but it looks like you exaggerate by about 99%.