Anyone tried to access grazing leases in Calgary Bow Zone

[NCC]

A lease owner buys the lease on the open market (any Alberta citizen can buy it), pays for the improvements, pays for the maintenance, and pays a fee per AMU. Hardly a free ride or welfare. If a lease owner is paying the frieght, he should have more right to control access than a welfare case who isn't contributing a nickel to the maintenance of his home.

Why is that the same guys who on here complaining about ranchers and farmers limiting access brag about having exclusive access to thousands of acres? Maybe you should share your exclusive hunting areas with some others who aren't as fortunate.

[Jamie]

Originally Posted by NCC

A lease owner buys the lease on the open market (any Alberta citizen can buy it), pays for the improvements, pays for the maintenance, and pays a fee per AMU. Hardly a free ride or welfare. If a lease owner is paying the frieght, he should have more right to control access than a welfare case who isn't contributing a nickel to the maintenance of his home.

Why is that the same guys who on here complaining about ranchers and farmers limiting access brag about having exclusive access to thousands of acres? Maybe you should share your exclusive hunting areas with some others who aren't as fortunate.

Your right, these leases shouldnt be on the open market for sale. The Gov should be re selling them.

The ranchers know the rules going in, and you are missing one key part of your statment..

THEY ARE RENTING FROM US!!!!
IT'S MY LAND THEY ARE RENTING!!!

If lease renters are not happy, they are more than welcome to purchase their own land.

Jamie

A lease owner buys the lease on the open market (any Alberta citizen can buy it), pays for the improvements, pays for the maintenance, and pays a fee per AMU.

Not 100% true. Only bonafide ranchers can purchase a lease and receive approval from Public Lands to hold it.

THEY ARE RENTING FROM US!!!!
IT'S MY LAND THEY ARE RENTING!!!

Unfortunately, they are not renting but leasing and with that comes many more rights. If this had been set up as a renting scenario, the people of Alberta would control access and receive oil and gas revenues but as it's a lease arrangement, that's not the case.

[msawyer]

NCC et al...

The current current rental rate set by SRD per AUM is only $2.79 in southern Alberta (its cheaper the farther north you go). This is ~ 10 percent or less of the current market value of grazing. In my view this constitutes a massive subsidy to grazing lease holders... And most of the grazing lease holders did not buy the leases at current exorbitant costs, in fact most did not buy them at all..

This is welfare ranching by any other name.. And then we let these welfare capitalists tell us who can and cannot go on public land?

Why do we put up with this?

Best regards

Mike

Grazing takes place on Alberta's public lands in a variety ways but it's grazing leases that give lease holders the most control over the land.

Those are interesting AUM numbers msawyer. I wasn't aware that it was that low. The going rate on private land right now hovers around $30AUM.




Grazing dispositions occur on more than six million acres of public land in Alberta. An additional two million acres of land in the Rocky Mountains Forest Reserve is designated for grazing use through allotments. Grazing is approved on public land through issuance of a variety of dispositions including:

Grazing leases, which account for most of the public land grazing, are long-term agreements to individuals, corporations or associations.

Grazing permits are issued on an annual basis, often on land such as fragmented parcels and periodically wet areas.

Head tax permits (HTPs) are issued annually for grazing livestock for a short period within a calendar year. They grant the right to the forage only and are used for areas where grazing is only occasionally available, or where grazing must be coordinated with other priority land uses.

Grazing licenses are long-term authorizations used predominantly in forested areas where forest management and timber harvesting need to be accommodated.

Grazing allotments are large areas of forested range in the central and southern foothills of the Rocky Mountains. They have minimal fencing, are defined by natural barriers such as rivers and mountain ranges and cattle only graze a small portion of the area each summer.

Provincial Grazing Reserves (PGRs) are community pastures located throughout the province, providing a significant amount of local public land grazing. HTPs issued to the reserve association are used to authorize the grazing. The associations pay additional fees for rental of government buildings, corrals and maintenance of the pastures.

[Jamie]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Unfortunately, they are not renting but leasing and with that comes many more rights. If this had been set up as a renting scenario, the people of Alberta would control access and receive oil and gas revenues but as it's a lease arrangement, that's not the case.

Use what ever name you wish Sheep.. But at the end of the day, they are RENTERS.

I think the whole thing needs to be overhauled. I really dont mind giving the Rancher cheap land to run cattle on. BUT dont screw with the access and all Revenue should go back to the Gov.

Jamie

Originally Posted by Jamie

Use what ever name you wish Sheep.. But at the end of the day, they are RENTERS.

I think the whole thing needs to be overhauled. I really dont mind giving the Rancher cheap land to run cattle on. BUT dont screw with the access and all Revenue should go back to the Gov.

Jamie

LOL...sadly it's not what I want to call it but what the government chose to call it and the rights that go with that classification. I agree that an overhaul would be welcome but I don't think you'll see it any time soon. There's something wrong with a system that allows leaseholders to make more off a grazinng lease from oil/gas and hunting revenue than they do from cows. There's no doubt that large grazers like cows are an important part of the grasslands and ranchers should receive the opportunity to graze this public land at a reasonable rate but I'm not sure they should receive the surface revenues from public land and they definitely shouldn't be able to control access stricly for their financial benefit.

[BowhuntAB]

If it is we won't hear from him again...

Originally Posted by dennisb

Hey hunt2live7766, just wondering if you are the individual(SSS) that we are all talking about. I just found out that the ranch Phone # 403-938-7766

Get it, the last 4 numbers in your handle jive with the last 4 numbers in the contact info for Triple S outfitting

Not to be a ass, But if it is you(SSS) this is a great place for you to clear the air.

[NCC]

If you can find someone willing to pay $30 aum for rent I've got about 40 quarters they can rent. Hell, I'll even give you 10% for brokering the deal. Community pastures are about $15 per aum and they provide riders to check and treat cattle and also provide the salt, with no capital put up front by the cattle owner. Take the $2.50 per AUM, add $6 per AUM for the interest on the lease ($100 000 for 1000 aum @ 6% interest), and another $6 per aum to pay off the capital investment and then add fence construction, fence maintenance, improvements, discing, reseeding, spraying weeds, and everything else, you're at private market prices per AUM. To call it rancher welfare is an insult. It's a free market system and leases will sell for what the market will bear. If you as a renter, don't like the arrangement, change the lease agreement instead of bitching about the rancher. If he is not following the terms of his lease, he should have the lease taken away. If he is within the rules, leave him alone.

What are you're ideas for revamping the system? Take them all away? Crank the rent up so that all of the leases sit dormant until the willows and brush takes over and the game densities decrease like the rest of the west country. Tame improved pasture will support a lot more game than native bush will. That's why the leases hold large numbers of game. Lease land and other agriculture properties are good for game populations.

Anyone citizen of Alberta can be a rancher; therefore anyone can buy a lease. Head to the auction mart, buy a few crow bait cows, go buy a lease, and you're in business. If it only costs you $2.50 per aum and most guys making a go of it paying $15 per aum, you'll be the richest most successful rancher in Alberta. You'll have control of so much land that you won't know where to start hanging tree stands.

I'm not sure what the fuss about oil revenue is. If I have a lease and the oil company fences off 5 acres of it when they drill a well, I lose use of those 5 acres and the oil company compensates me for it. What is unfair about that?

And what do you mean about the government should be reselling them?

Easy NCC.....I'm all for grazing on most public land and I'm all for ranchers getting a decent price on using that grass so please don't try and stuff a bunch of words in my mouth that I didn't say. You are reading way too much into my statements. What I am against, however, is ranchers making more off surface rights on public lands than they pay for the land. I'm also against ranchers controling access to public lands for financial benefit. It is public land after all and all the public should benefit from it, ranchers included but not ranchers exclusively.

I'm not sure where you live NCC but $30 an AUM is the going rate Edmonton south and there is a line up of guys wanting to graze these lands. That includes them upkeeping the fences. And your comments about anyone becoming a rancher are quite off base too. Public Lands must approve any sale of lease land and buying a few flea bitten cows will not get you approval. Truthfully, I'm glad it won't. This land was designated for grazing and it should be grazed by bonifide ranchers, not some guy trying to tie up the hunting rights.

From where you sit in the north, a lot of the issues surrounding grazing leases likely don't apply but make no mistake, grazing leases have become big business in the south. Especially leases with surface rights revenue. One rancher told me the only reason he keeps his cows is so that he can cash the surface rights cheques from his leased land.

[Cowtown guy]

Originally Posted by BowhuntAB

If it is we won't hear from him again...

Surprised he was even here as I can't find a website or any other info on this "SSS" character. First 3 pages of a google search turned up nothing and APOS didn't have anything on their whitetail outfitters either.
Obviously one of his buddies is here and alerted him to the goings on.

[Jamie]

NCC.

Obviously the Gov is under charging, or else the Renter would not have the abilty to sell leases on the open market for any where near what they get today.

Once a rancher has no use for a lease, the lease should be turned back to the Gov, they shouldnt be allowed to sell it on the open market.

Jamie

[trouty]

it's Triple S Outfitting, not SSS I found no website either just a contact #

[NCC]

I was raised at Leslieville, my dad had 3 sections of lease between Rocky and Rimbey, and my parents and uncles on both side still ranch in central Alberta, so I have a pretty good idea of what grass is worth. 5 years ago guys may have paid $30 per aum but I doubt it now. Neither myself or my dad has ever refused anyone access to lease land. I walk when I hunt on my lease; I expect others to do the same. I believe that access should be available and speculators should not be able to purchase leases. I'm just trying to present a leasee's point of view. I also feel the frustration of people living in a city who can't find any place to hunt.

I'm a little touchy about this because last week someone (obviously not a hunter) left a gate open and I now have 200 cows out in the wilderness. This morning I got a call that wolves killed one cow and chewed up another cow and I'm stuck at work wondering how many others they killed out in the bush. Some dirty cotton rock sucker created me a bunch of work and cost me thousands of dollars because they thought that I shouldn't have cows on public land. It also happened last year before hunting season. This lease was reasonably priced and adjacent to my land so I took it, but I'll never own lease land again.

[Swansong]

search myspace and you will find info on sss

Originally Posted by NCC

I was raised at Leslieville, my dad had 3 sections of lease between Rocky and Rimbey, and my parents and uncles on both side still ranch in central Alberta, so I have a pretty good idea of what grass is worth. 5 years ago guys may have paid $30 per aum but I doubt it now. Neither myself or my dad has ever refused anyone access to lease land. I walk when I hunt on my lease; I expect others to do the same. I believe that access should be available and speculators should not be able to purchase leases. I'm just trying to present a leasee's point of view. I also feel the frustration of people living in a city who can't find any place to hunt.

I'm a little touchy about this because last week someone (obviously not a hunter) left a gate open and I now have 200 cows out in the wilderness. This morning I got a call that wolves killed one cow and chewed up another cow and I'm stuck at work wondering how many others they killed out in the bush. Some dirty cotton rock sucker created me a bunch of work and cost me thousands of dollars because they thought that I shouldn't have cows on public land. It also happened last year before hunting season. This lease was reasonably priced and adjacent to my land so I took it, but I'll never own lease land again.

NCC, I understand all of the trials and tribulations that ranchers face and for the most part, the lease system works good but there is gross abuse in some areas and it's become huge business....and not always ranching business. When 2,356 acres of lease land sells for half a million dollars, you know it's big business and that was land with minimal surface revenue. We aren't talking a few hundred acres here but quite literally hundreds of thousands of acres.

As for the AUM price, $30 is the going rate this year in many of the extremely dry areas east of Red Deer and I haven't heard of anyone charging less than $20 anywhere south of Edmonton.

[dennisb]

Originally Posted by NCC

A lease owner buys the lease on the open market (any Alberta citizen can buy it), pays for the improvements, pays for the maintenance, and pays a fee per AMU. Hardly a free ride or welfare. If a lease owner is paying the frieght, he should have more right to control access than a welfare case who isn't contributing a nickel to the maintenance of his home.

Why is that the same guys who on here complaining about ranchers and farmers limiting access brag about having exclusive access to thousands of acres? Maybe you should share your exclusive hunting areas with some others who aren't as fortunate.

Just to clear thing up, I have never asked the sinclairs for permission and never will. I exclusivly only hunt on property that I know that it's only me on there(nice and quiet and I dont have to worry if some one was there just before me and spooked everything ).

One thing I really do beleive in is that absoutly everyone deserves the right to spend the day out hunting, and I know were only talking about a 1/2 section here.....but that could totally support at least 4 hunters.

I really think there are 2 major issues with this thread:

1. The lease access issue
2. A outfitter that does not follow the rules and conducts him self in a very negitave manner. Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.

How Many guys on this board would like to hunt this particular lease???
How many guys on this board are willing to support the guy's that want to hunt this lease?????

I say lets get things going( not sure what or how) but 100 guys can scream louder that 1 or 2 guys.

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by Jamie

NCC.

Obviously the Gov is under charging, or else the Renter would not have the abilty to sell leases on the open market for any where near what they get today.

Once a rancher has no use for a lease, the lease should be turned back to the Gov, they shouldnt be allowed to sell it on the open market.

Jamie

So what you are saying is that a rancher buys lease land for say, $50 000 a quarter, decides to quit ranching or move for whatever reason, he should have to give it back to the government? As mentioned, grazing fees are quite low on lease lands, but buying these lease lands can be fairly high priced also. About the oil wells on lease, the amount paid out is not nearly as much as it is on deeded land, although it is definately a bonus.

[monstermulie]

WOW!!! I just joined up and all ready this guy is mentioned in 3 different posts and all negative. I sure hope i don't run into him this season

Originally Posted by MountainTi

So what you are saying is that a rancher buys lease land for say, $50 000 a quarter, decides to quit ranching or move for whatever reason, he should have to give it back to the government? As mentioned, grazing fees are quite low on lease lands, but buying these lease lands can be fairly high priced also. About the oil wells on lease, the amount paid out is not nearly as much as it is on deeded land, although it is definately a bonus.

That is the problem, the government should have never allowed these leases to be sold in the first place. Now, obviously you can't ask a rancher to give up his investment. It should have never been allowed in the first place and the only way out would be for the Government to buy them back.

Why are surface lease rights lower on lease land than deeded land?

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Why are surface lease rights lower on lease land than deeded land?

Why? Not sure on that. On some lease of my Dad's, he was paid $2300 for a well being drilled, and the yearly rights are $1300/year. Now this is up in GP, so maybe that makes a difference, but down south on deeded a new well typically runs about $10000 to $12000 with about a yearly of $2800 or so. A quarter I just bought by Caroline has a well on it that pays $3600 a year, so to me it is a big difference between lease and deeded.
Now for some of the big guys out in special areas that have thousands of acres of lease, $1300 a well when you can have up to 4 per quarter, it is still a lot of money.

Originally Posted by MountainTi

Why? Not sure on that. On some lease of my Dad's, he was paid $2300 for a well being drilled, and the yearly rights are $1300/year. Now this is up in GP, so maybe that makes a difference, but down south on deeded a new well typically runs about $10000 to $12000 with about a yearly of $2800 or so. A quarter I just bought by Caroline has a well on it that pays $3600 a year, so to me it is a big difference between lease and deeded.

More likely regional and based on what type of land was taken out of production and the original value of the land. Each surface lease is negotiated individually. You could be right about lease land being less but I've never heard that. Maybe your Dad just needs a better negotiator..

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Maybe your Dad just needs a better negotiator..

Obviously you don't know my Dad, but I sure wouldn't want to negotiate with him. 40 yrs. in the oilpatch, he knows how to deal with oil companies
I know out east, the CBM wells pay less on the lease than on deeded also. I think that about all that pays the same on lease land is seismic, as it is payment for damage, also why it is tax free.

[Jamie]

Originally Posted by MountainTi

So what you are saying is that a rancher buys lease land for say, $50 000 a quarter, decides to quit ranching or move for whatever reason, he should have to give it back to the government? As mentioned, grazing fees are quite low on lease lands, but buying these lease lands can be fairly high priced also. About the oil wells on lease, the amount paid out is not nearly as much as it is on deeded land, although it is definately a bonus.

Your are correct. Thats the issue.

But I am sure if the Gov wanted out, they could find away to keep most people happy.

Look what happened in BC, the Indians just took the land back by raising the rates so high. (residential land, not pasture)

Jamie

[BowhuntAB]

Originally Posted by dennisb
Hey hunt2live7766, just wondering if you are the individual(SSS) that we are all talking about. I just found out that the ranch Phone # 403-938-7766

Get it, the last 4 numbers in your handle jive with the last 4 numbers in the contact info for Triple S outfitting

Not to be a ass, But if it is you(SSS) this is a great place for you to clear the air.

Originally Posted by BowhuntAB

If it is we won't hear from him again...

I just wanted to check back on this....BIG SHOCK!!!
He's gone.......kinda.
What a bunch of loosers....

[Albertadiver]

Originally Posted by BowhuntAB

I just wanted to check back on this....BIG SHOCK!!!
He's gone.......kinda.
What a bunch of loosers....

He hasn't been around the site for the last 4 weeks....

[BowhuntAB]

Originally Posted by Albertadiver

He hasn't been around the site for the last 4 weeks....

He has....just a new name.

[Albertadiver]

Originally Posted by BowhuntAB

He has....just a new name.

Although I couldn't find it in the board rules, I believe it's against the rules to have more than one username. Especially for a guy like this who apparantley likes to lurk around. Maybe you should let the Mods know who the various screen names are and let them deal with it accordingly?

Seems like he wasn't stand up enough to explain himself when asked anyhow.

[BowhuntAB]

Originally Posted by Albertadiver

Although I couldn't find it in the board rules, I believe it's against the rules to have more than one username. Especially for a guy like this who apparantley likes to lurk around. Maybe you should let the Mods know who the various screen names are and let them deal with it accordingly?

Seems like he wasn't stand up enough to explain himself when asked anyhow.

They would never stand up and explain themselves. They are a bunch of cowards who have creeped around the 212 for years doing what they want. Now the local hunters and landowners are fed up with them so they just clam up and hide even more.