Grazing Lease access

[coreya3212]

Does anyone know the total dollar value the province gets from leaseholders from yearly rent and taxes per year?

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by jessepaul

I did view a bunch of the other threads before posting this one "hillbillyreefer". I even viewed your half ***** replies you gave other guys on those threads. I wasn't looking for your ignorance, but only for a proper way of doing this. I've had helpful people point me in the right direction because of this post, even giving me phone numbers. Sure wasn't you manning up to help rather than just criticize me and others on here.

As for knocking on some Grazing Leaseholders door, like hell you'll see me drive from Rocky Mtn House to Airdrie then back to Rocky for permission to hunt.
AOF is a useful tool as long as the tools stay away! Everyone's tough from behind their computer and its so bloody funny!

Thank you to those guys that have helped, greatly appreciated, and to the rest well....

To be honest... that seems a bit counter-intuitive to me.

To begin with...how do you choose where it is you want permission for?

[sirmike68]

Originally Posted by coreya3212

Does anyone know the total dollar value the province gets from leaseholders from yearly rent and taxes per year?

I know the two 1/4's that surround my land are leased out from the province for under $300 and taxes are approx $20 per 1/4. Good deal for the farmer if you can get it.

[jessepaul]

I use Google earth to find structure as to where good hunting could or should be, then have my County Map sitting right beside me. From there I make a few phone calls or knock on peoples doors and gain access to private land or public grazing lease land. Setup trailcams and a bit of attractent to see if the property is worthy of wasting time on or not. Then I sit on a beach from mid July into August in Montana drinking Coors and waiting for hunting season to arrive!

Originally Posted by Big Daddy Badger

To be honest... that seems a bit counter-intuitive to me.

To begin with...how do you choose where it is you want permission for?

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by jessepaul

I use Google earth to find structure as to where good hunting could or should be, then have my County Map sitting right beside me. From there I make a few phone calls or knock on peoples doors and gain access to private land or public grazing lease land. Setup trailcams and a bit of attractent to see if the property is worthy of wasting time on or not. Then I sit on a beach from mid July into August in Montana drinking Coors and waiting for hunting season to arrive!

I prefer to see the land.... google maps is alright but it can be decieving as well.
Also...I find that landowners are more receptive to a face than a cold call.

To each their own I guess.

[jessepaul]

I completely agree with the face to face option if its available! I like seeing the land also but for a starting point google maps can eliminate a large portion of non-huntable properties and having the county map beside the computer can elminate even more questions and fuel consumption!

Originally Posted by Big Daddy Badger

I prefer to see the land.... google maps is alright but it can be decieving as well.
Also...I find that landowners are more receptive to a face than a cold call.

To each their own I guess.

[thumper]

The majority of leaseholders I speak with respect the rules and my rights to access public land, and in return, I respect the rules and their rights to utilize the land.

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I've found most leaseholders difficult to deal with. I don't mean to cast disrespect on those that follow the rules.

Generally, I find most problems are now caused by the contact information of the government website not being updated in a timely manner. However, some are still caused by some leaseholders who are/will not follow the rules or the intent of those rules. This is evidenced by threads on this subject in this forum that carry leaseholder posts outlining reasons for them refusing access that are clearly not bona-fide reasons - under the rules and conditions of lease agreements, - as outlined on the government website and other material. Thankfully, in my experience, those leaseholders that do not comply, are becoming fewer and fewer, as they become more aware of the requirements of their leases. This may be because land managers are 'spelling it out' more clearly, and more often to avoid repeat complaints from recreationalists seeking access.

I know of some exceptional cases where the government has granted special, more onerous access restrictions on specific leases through a negotiated 'management plan', but I believe them to be very rare.

If the recurrence of this subject is a problem to some - then I suggest they don't open the thread - the 'subject line' of this one is quite clear. To me, it's an ongoing problem that still needs to be addressed, and I'll continue to encourage all parties to simply play by the rules whenever somebody opens a thread on the subject.

[jessepaul]

Thanks "thumper" for being a big help in this! Some aim to help and shed light on the matter, while others will be.... well we both know where that can go haha.

Once again thank you with your help! Cheers

Originally Posted by thumper

The majority of leaseholders I speak with respect the rules and my rights to access public land, and in return, I respect the rules and their rights to utilize the land.

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I've found most leaseholders difficult to deal with. I don't mean to cast disrespect on those that follow the rules.

Generally, I find most problems are now caused by the contact information of the government website not being updated in a timely manner. However, some are still caused by some leaseholders who are/will not follow the rules or the intent of those rules. This is evidenced by threads on this subject in this forum that carry leaseholder posts outlining reasons for them refusing access that are clearly not bona-fide reasons - under the rules and conditions of lease agreements, - as outlined on the government website and other material. Thankfully, in my experience, those leaseholders that do not comply, are becoming fewer and fewer, as they become more aware of the requirements of their leases. This may be because land managers are 'spelling it out' more clearly, and more often to avoid repeat complaints from recreationalists seeking access.

I know of some exceptional cases where the government has granted special, more onerous access restrictions on specific leases through a negotiated 'management plan', but I believe them to be very rare.

If the recurrence of this subject is a problem to some - then I suggest they don't open the thread - the 'subject line' of this one is quite clear. To me, it's an ongoing problem that still needs to be addressed, and I'll continue to encourage all parties to simply play by the rules whenever somebody opens a thread on the subject.

[brownbomber]

Originally Posted by Big Daddy Badger

My thought is that it is because this is an ongoing and growing problem.

Without picking sides here because I know it cuts both ways... the whole leased land and crown lands thing needs to be re-written.

Like I've said before... BC's way of dealing with open ranges and crown land is the model that I think Alberta should go with. There...they actually enforce the rules making sure that both recreational users and those grazing cattle are accountable.

Albertas system seems designed to create friction and drive wedges between those that use crown land for recreation and those that use it for commercial purposes.

And that extends beyond grazing areas to include other crown lands used for logging etc.

Well said it should be both ways. Users should respect it and lease holders should not think they own it or treat it as such. We as albertans are privileged to have access to public lands and lease holders should feel privileged to use public land for their endeavours.

I've heard bad examples from both sides. Jerks saying this guy waS difficult about access so when I get in there I'm gonna rip it up with the quad and jerks saying we do our best to only let family hunt the lease. It's a double edged sword that needs to be fixed because it does affect all albertans with a love for the outdoors and those who rightfully use public land to help make a living.

[hillbillyreefer]

Yup your right JP, your thread is epic and totally different from all the others.

[HunterDave]

I just made arrangements to trap on some crown lease land in the area. No problem whatsoever as long as I use respect and I'd expect that to be the case as with anything else. I think that it helps when you know how to present yourself and talk to people. Ya catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.

[bison]

Originally Posted by sirmike68

I know the two 1/4's that surround my land are leased out from the province for under $300 and taxes are approx $20 per 1/4. Good deal for the farmer if you can get it.

If these are bush quarters for grazing the guy is probably losing money on it.
Good deal for the province though

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by bison

If these are bush quarters for grazing the guy is probably losing money on it.
Good deal for the province though

Why would a fella, by choice, own a lease that would cause him to loose money?

[brownbomber]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

Why would a fella, by choice, own a lease that would cause him to loose money?

I charge a lot more than that per quarter for rent for grazing on the land me and my dad own

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by brownbomber

I charge a lot more than that per quarter for rent for grazing on the land me and my dad own

That's what I'm sayin. I know a fella that charges per head, per day on his land to graze cattle and he generates a lot more money than $320/year.....lol! Am I missing something?

[norwestalta]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

That's what I'm sayin. I know a fella that charges per head, per day on his land to graze cattle and he generates a lot more money than $320/year.....lol! Am I missing something?

You can also graze a lot more animals on your land. Some of these leases are cheap until you figure in the work required for fencing it.

[Deer Hunter]

Bob Scammell tried to raise awareness of these issues a while ago. Oil and Gas activity on leased land can be like winning the lottery for the leaseholder. Never mind the cheap grass, and the ability to restrict access to public lands.

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&...62922401,d.cGU

Bob Scammell, a born and raised Albertan, has been fishing and hunting here and elsewhere for more than 50 years and writing about it since 1966 in a weekly outdoors column that continues to appear in various Alberta newspapers. He has freelanced to many of North America's major outdoors magazines.

For 37 years, until 1998, Scammell practiced law in Red Deer, Alberta. In the early '70's he served two terms as president of the Alberta Fish and Game Association, the province's largest association of anglers and hunters. In 1976 the AFGA awarded Scammell the Fulton Trophy, its highest award, and early in 2000 the Alberta government inducted him into the Order of Bighorn, its highest honour to a conservationist. The Canadian Wildlife Federation also honored Scammell with its Roderick Haig-Brown Award in Winnipeg in June 2005.

[pikeslayer22]

That may have been true back in the day deer hunter...have you had a look at what some of these leases are going for now?

[Deer Hunter]

Originally Posted by pikeslayer22

That may have been true back in the day deer hunter...have you had a look at what some of these leases are going for now?

"Going for" as in what are people paying for them? Or what are the leaseholders paying the crown? Don't quite understand the question...

[pikeslayer22]

What people are initially paying from the previous leaseholders...once that payment is done the yearly payments are a lot like deeded land

[bison]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

That's what I'm sayin. I know a fella that charges per head, per day on his land to graze cattle and he generates a lot more money than $320/year.....lol! Am I missing something?

On open land yes. If it is a full bush quarter then..no, if it is fenced ..maybe,..depending how much AUM one is allowed.
If the leaseholder has to clear a fence line and build a fence on just one or 2 1/4's of bush to graze the 5 or so AUM allowed there is no way he can ever make it pay.
BTDT.

[Deer Hunter]

Originally Posted by pikeslayer22

What people are initially paying from the previous leaseholders...once that payment is done the yearly payments are a lot like deeded land

Leaseholders can ask big $$$ on the sales of crown leases because:

1) oil and gas surface lease rentals are like an annuity to the leaseholder, some crown leases have enough oil and gas activity on them that yearly revenue from such can be over $100K/year to the leaseholder. People pay multiples of this yearly cashflow and can expect further future oil and gas development increasing the annual payment. This is a good long term business, even if you have to run the odd cow.

2) the leaseholder can control the lease similar to deeded land, due in part to poor enforcement of vague government regulations around public access.

3) the annual crown lease cost to the leaseholder is minor and generally much smaller than the comparative cost to lease private grassland. There is really no downside to owning a government lease.

4) Fences, waterholes etc, once built, last a long time. Again, very little cost downside.

5) The government transfer fee for these crown leases is very small.

[Scott h]

Originally Posted by Mb-MBR

On another note, we have Albertans coming here buying out farmers and some of those homesteads come with a lot of hectares of crown land. The new homestead owner has tried to restrict access and I had to inform 7 of them laws are different here.

Here it is advisable to notify the land owner if you are going to access the crown land and he does not have the authority to restrict access. All 7 were quite disappointed of the differing laws.

That sounds like a great system, a win win for all those involved. The lease holder gets to graze the land and the public (who really own the land) get to use it. Problem solved, everyone wins and the fighting stops.

[Matt L.]

Originally Posted by Scott h

That sounds like a great system, a win win for all those involved. The lease holder gets to graze the land and the public (who really own the land) get to use it. Problem solved, everyone wins and the fighting stops.

I'm sure we could still find something to fight over.

[Icon]

Originally Posted by Deer Hunter

Leaseholders can ask big $$$ on the sales of crown leases because:

1) oil and gas surface lease rentals are like an annuity to the leaseholder, some crown leases have enough oil and gas activity on them that yearly revenue from such can be over $100K/year to the leaseholder. People pay multiples of this yearly cashflow and can expect further future oil and gas development increasing the annual payment. This is a good long term business, even if you have to run the odd cow.

2) the leaseholder can control the lease similar to deeded land, due in part to poor enforcement of vague government regulations around public access.

3) the annual crown lease cost to the leaseholder is minor and generally much smaller than the comparative cost to lease private grassland. There is really no downside to owning a government lease.

4) Fences, waterholes etc, once built, last a long time. Again, very little cost downside.

5) The government transfer fee for these crown leases is very small.

Wow, I had no idea that a GRAZING lease would entitle the lease holder to revenue of other activities like Oil and Gas. I grew up in BC and from what I remember a GRAZING lease only entitled the lease holder to exclusive rights to the available grazing. The same land could be leased to other holders for other rights like timber or minerals. Seems to me that an Alberta Grazing Lease is more of an all encompassing Lease of Crown Land. Considering this, those Leases should be recouping more money for the People of Alberta, maybe a sliding scale base on any activity conducted on it. That or a complete overhaul of how Crown Land leases are handled.

As a member of the public, I really liked how BC handles it's Crown Land. As I remember it, you were not required as a member of the public to "request" access to those Crown lands, but you were required to keep all gates how they were found and to not harass the livestock in ANY way, nor tamper with any lease improvements. I also remember that all livestock had to be off the lease by Oct 31. I don't remember there being too many issues with ranchers in the area I was in (Kamloops), but that was a different time with much of the public respecting the property of others.

[bobalong]

Originally Posted by Icon

but that was a different time with much of the public respecting the property of others.

That statement pretty well explains the whole Lease Land access issue. That said, I do not agree with lease holders receiving surface right compensation for oil/gas revenues,(with the exceptions listed below) as IMO it has nothing to do with "grazing" which is the sole intent of the lease. With the government being the owner of the land, I am not sure why they would not have used a similar contract.

If you look at part of a lease contract below for deeded land it lists the compensation that is payable the landowner (landlord) and which is payable to the tenant (person leasing the land)

Compensation for Oil and Gas, Utilities, Roads, and Rights-of-Way

Compensation for reasons such as, but not limited to, property damage and inconvenience from oil and gas exploration, pipeline development, power and telephone line installations, or road construction, shall accrue to the party that has suffered the loss. The landlord will have the final say on who has suffered the loss except as follows:
a) where the compensation is for crop damage, the compensation will be paid to the tenant.
b) where the compensation is for work completed by the tenant such as, but not limited to, fence reconstruction,grass reseeding or top soil levelling, the compensation will be paid to the tenant.
c) where the compensation is for the creation of a nuisance situation such as, but not limited to, gates being left open, dust or noise, the compensation will be paid to the tenant.
d) where the compensation is for a decrease in the land’s value such as, but not limited to, loss of acres from the development, severing a parcel of land or top soil disturbance, the payment shall be made to the landlord.
e)compensation for reasons such as, but not limited to, property damage and inconvenience from oil and gas exploration, pipeline development, power and telephone line installations, or road construction, shall accrue to the landlord.

[Scott h]

"As a member of the public, I really liked how BC handles it's Crown Land. As I remember it, you were not required as a member of the public to "request" access to those Crown lands, but you were required to keep all gates how they were found and to not harass the livestock in ANY way, nor tamper with any lease improvements. I also remember that all livestock had to be off the lease by Oct 31"

Does anyone know the history about how the provinces ended up with such different methods of dealing with leased out public land?
I have to agree with Icon, you never really hear about issues with lease access here in BC

[Deer Hunter]

Alberta's cattle business controlled grazing leases before oil and gas showed up.
BC crown land I believe was governed more around forestry and mining. And BC has much less oil and gas activity than alberta.

[hillbillyreefer]

The crown "you regular Albertans" are also paid for the energy access on crown land leased to ranchers. The leaseholder gets a small portion and the crown gets the big portion of the yearly access.

And if the crown sells lease land to the leaseholder the leaseholder must also pay the crown for future energy lease revenues, that the crown will forego. I think it's 5yrs worth of energy lease payments.

Seems to be a lot of yapping not a lot of facts in these threads.

Epic, eh JP.

[unclebuck]

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

The crown "you regular Albertans" are also paid for the energy access on crown land leased to ranchers. The leaseholder gets a small portion and the crown gets the big portion of the yearly access.

And if the crown sells lease land to the leaseholder the leaseholder must also pay the crown for future energy lease revenues, that the crown will forego. I think it's 5yrs worth of energy lease payments.

Seems to be a lot of yapping not a lot of facts in these threads.

Epic, eh JP.

Yep, and ducks fart in shallow water too!!!!