.......

[Dewey Cox]

Forgive me if I'm wrong here, but here's how I understand this.
The farmer leases "X" number of acres from the government.
The oil/gas operation sets up and makes some of those acres unsuitable for farming.
Shouldn't the farmer be compensated for the rent he paid on the acres he didn't have the use of?

[HoytCRX32]

The real problem is when the leaseholders want the land for it's surface disturbance payments (oil and gas, etc) more than they want it for their cattle. When PanCanadian, CNRL, Renaissance etc. were putting shallow gas wells every quarter section on the prairies and paying around $2,500.00/year per well, some leaseholders were making hundreds of thousands of dollars per year just on this alone. Keep in mind that once the wells were drilled, the total surface disturbance was 2 m x 2 m + access road, which many leaseholders were happy to have as the oil companies paid for road maintenance, not to mention they could get around their lease lands easier.

[FCLightning]

Originally Posted by ImpartialObserver

My point is that if the government sees fit to charge one member of the public (ranchers) to use the land, then aren't the rest of the public who use the land for free stealing from the government coffers?

No, they are charging for the value of the grass consumed - well, not really because the "fee" is 1/25th of the market rate for grass - but that is the concept.
Hunters are also charged for the resource they consume - they pay licence fees to the gov't for each animal pursued/taken.
The ones who use the land for free - picknickers, hikers, photographers are not consuming any public resource and therefore are not charged.

The problem comes when one group thinks that the "fee" they paid entitles them to so much more than what they paid for - some grass.

[FCLightning]

Originally Posted by russ

The simplest solution to this "problem" is for the gov't to dispose of the land by selling it to the current leaseholders. This would also move the land into the tax rolls of the counties & md's and increase the local tax base. It would also alleviate all the belly aching about who should get the surface rights payments for the land that the leaseholder has paid for.

By the time the article in the OP came out in 2011 much of the land had already been converted - quietly in "secret" bidding process. The problem with such a process is that many Albertans like the fact that there is public land available for various recreation purposes and would like that land to stay in the public hands for the use of all citizens. Selling of select pieces of land that are actually revenue generators does a disservice to all Albertans.

[coachman]

Are you guys are worried that a few people are making money from grazing lease or that you can not get access? If your worried about the money what happened up north when a few companies wanted to expand there oil leases. The Alberta government paid out millions of dollars to other oil companies that had licences in the area. When the Alberta government wanted to put more parks in the area they paid the forest and oil companies for there lost area. When oil companies put a lease in a FMA they pay compensation to the timber companies. When we wanted to expand our rifle range the timber company wanted 30,000 dollars for a few acres and they still get any trees that we cut. This is all crown land . If it about the money then you people are thinking small!

[FCLightning]

Originally Posted by Dewey Cox

Forgive me if I'm wrong here, but here's how I understand this.
The farmer leases "X" number of acres from the government.
The oil/gas operation sets up and makes some of those acres unsuitable for farming.
Shouldn't the farmer be compensated for the rent he paid on the acres he didn't have the use of?

Farmer pays an annual fee based on how many cattle the lease can support, or how many acres can be farmed. Simple solution is to adjust the annual fee for the loss of the land use. In the case of a grazing lease, having an oil well on the property would result in a reduction of the annual fee by about $1.50 and on a cultivation lease would be $18 given a lease size of 3 acres (the usable land loss is far less than that in reality).

[FCLightning]

Originally Posted by coachman

Are you guys are worried that a few people are making money from grazing lease or that you can not get access? If your worried about the money what happened up north when a few companies wanted to expand there oil leases. The Alberta government paid out millions of dollars to other oil companies that had licences in the area. When the Alberta government wanted to put more parks in the area they paid the forest and oil companies for there lost area. When oil companies put a lease in a FMA they pay compensation to the timber companies. When we wanted to expand our rifle range the timber company wanted 30,000 dollars for a few acres and they still get any trees that we cut. This is all crown land . If it about the money then you people are thinking small!

The Alberta Government does not own any trees in Alberta. They have already sold the rights to those trees to the various lumber companies. The gov't already has the money in the bank from the sale of the trees, so, if the gov't wants some of those trees back for a park, etc. they will have to buy them. The same is true of the oil extraction permits - there are very few places in Alberta where oil extraction rights have not already been sold to someone. The gov't already has that money in the bank. If they want to cancel oil extraction in some of the areas that have been already sold they will need to give the money back.

There are no annual revenues here - simply a one time sale of the right to harvest.

[elkhunter220]

Boy leaseholders sure having been getting a lot of heat these days! haha

[mich]

Originally Posted by Dewey Cox

Forgive me if I'm wrong here, but here's how I understand this.
The farmer leases "X" number of acres from the government.
The oil/gas operation sets up and makes some of those acres unsuitable for farming.
Shouldn't the farmer be compensated for the rent he paid on the acres he didn't have the use of?

exactly

[ImpartialObserver]

Originally Posted by FCLightning

No, they are charging for the value of the grass consumed - well, not really because the "fee" is 1/25th of the market rate for grass - but that is the concept.
Hunters are also charged for the resource they consume - they pay licence fees to the gov't for each animal pursued/taken.
The ones who use the land for free - picknickers, hikers, photographers are not consuming any public resource and therefore are not charged.

The problem comes when one group thinks that the "fee" they paid entitles them to so much more than what they paid for - some grass.

Hunters are charged the same amount whether they hunt on public or private land.

Why should the government receive any fees from hunters who only hunt private land.

The public does not pay the private rancher a lease fee for the public animals to run on private land, but they pay a fee to the government to harvest the animals.

So in effect the government is making money from the private land owner by having it's animals on his land for free and receiving hunting fees from hunters that use that private land.

[FCLightning]

Originally Posted by ImpartialObserver

Hunters are charged the same amount whether they hunt on public or private land.

Why should the government receive any fees from hunters who only hunt private land.

Because the hunter not paying for any sort of access to any land. He is paying for the right to harvest a game animal from the public resource. Where he harvests that animal, whether it be public or private ground, is immaterial to what he paid for. It is illegal to charge for access to the public wildlife resource.

Originally Posted by ImpartialObserver

The public does not pay the private rancher a lease fee for the public animals to run on private land, but they pay a fee to the government to harvest the animals.

So in effect the government is making money from the private land owner by having it's animals on his land for free and receiving hunting fees from hunters that use that private land.

One of the tenets of wildlife resource management in this country - the game belongs to the people and have free range of the country.
The public (through the offices of the gov't) does pay compensation to private landowners when they can show that they have been unduly harmed by the public wildlife. They also have programs in place to aid the private landowner to mitigate loss from the public wildlife resource.
IMO, any private landowner that does not participate in the wildlife management program ie: hunting access, should not receive compensation since they have not availed themselves of the protections which are available.

[ImpartialObserver]

Originally Posted by FCLightning

Because the hunter not paying for any sort of access to any land. He is paying for the right to harvest a game animal from the public resource. Where he harvests that animal, whether it be public or private ground, is immaterial to what he paid for. It is illegal to charge for access to the public wildlife resource.



One of the tenets of wildlife resource management in this country - the game belongs to the people and have free range of the country.
The public (through the offices of the gov't) does pay compensation to private landowners when they can show that they have been unduly harmed by the public wildlife. They also have programs in place to aid the private landowner to mitigate loss from the public wildlife resource.
IMO, any private landowner that does not participate in the wildlife management program ie: hunting access, should not receive compensation since they have not availed themselves of the protections which are available.

I am not talking about paying for access.

The public puts a value on the grass on crown land and the rancher is forced to pay for the grass he uses and shares with wildlife without any proof of hardship.

The public does not pay the rancher any fee for the grass that he shares with wildlife on his private land unless he can show some kind of hardship caused by the public wildlife.

So if the rancher has 1000 acres of private land he runs cows on and shares with wildlife, and he also leases 1000 acres to run cows on and share with wildlife.

He has to pay a fee to the public for the grass used by him on the public land, but no fee is paid to him by the public for the grass used by wildlife.

So when I see guys complaining about ranchers making money from oil leases I wonder if they ever think of the good deal hunters are getting by not having the price of grass consumed by wildlife on private land added to license fees.

[FCLightning]

No one is forcing any rancher to pay for the grass on public land - it is his choice to lease or not lease it.

Free roaming wildlife is one of the facts of life for landowners in Alberta, just like the sun, the rain and the wind - all things which are a blessing and a curse for the farmer in Alberta.

[ImpartialObserver]

Originally Posted by FCLightning

No one is forcing any rancher to pay for the grass on public land - it is his choice to lease or not lease it.

Free roaming wildlife is one of the facts of life for landowners in Alberta, just like the sun, the rain and the wind - all things which are a blessing and a curse for the farmer in Alberta.

Yes, and no one in Alberta is forced to pay to eat wild meat. It is their choice to hunt or not hunt.

Wildlife is a fact of life for the rancher, one that is accepted by him. So unless he is doing something to the detriment of the wildlife, I think hunters should not be worrying about how he runs his business.

[russ]

Originally Posted by GFY

I got a better one. How about we take all leases and make them year to year to the highest bidder and take all revenues and make our taxes lower. I find it sad the craps that goes on with these lands. There is no way that we should sell these lands to the leasee. I also think there needs to be more rules to use these lands as most exsploite these lands to get more money from there own land. We as taxpayers that own these lands subsidice these farmers and rancher with these lands and all the handouts they get.

Why shouldn't the land be sold to the leasee? Problem solved. Political furor goes away in about a year and everyone's forgets the good old days that weren't really all that great anyway.

[stringer]

Originally Posted by Dewey Cox

Forgive me if I'm wrong here, but here's how I understand this.
The farmer leases "X" number of acres from the government.
The oil/gas operation sets up and makes some of those acres unsuitable for farming.
Shouldn't the farmer be compensated for the rent he paid on the acres he didn't have the use of?

He is beening compensated.
Leased pasture $ 1.30 to $ 2.30 / AUM
Private pasture $39 to $45 / AUM

[stringer]

Originally Posted by russ

Why shouldn't the land be sold to the leasee? Problem solved. Political furor goes away in about a year and everyone's forgets the good old days that weren't really all that great anyway.

I have a better idea offer it to me first.

[russ]

With the caveat that it must be actively farmed by the new landowner not by a renter/leaser.

[stringer]

Originally Posted by russ

With the caveat that it must be actively farmed by the new landowner not by a renter/leaser.

No problem I have a half dozen horses.

[russ]

Originally Posted by stringer

No problem I have a half dozen horses.

Good to know that you're no better than any of the other abusers of the current system.

[stringer]

Originally Posted by russ

Good to know that you're no better than any of the other abusers of the current system.

Where did I state I would not allow access to my property.
It would be mine after I purchased it.
I already have plenty of land that I own and lease out and everyone that askes is welcome to access it as long as they show respect

[elkhunter220]

Originally Posted by stringer

Where did I state I would not allow access to my property.
It would be mine after I purchased it.
I already have plenty of land that I own and lease out and everyone that askes is welcome to access it as long as they show respect

When you say you lease out land..is that private land that you lease out to your neighbors or friends etc.. or is it land you lease from the gov'?

[stringer]

Originally Posted by elkhunter220

When you say you lease out land..is that private land that you lease out to your neighbors or friends etc.. or is it land you lease from the gov'?

I own the land.

[purgatory.sv]

I know we assume we own the land.

I believe we can steward the land.

[stringer]

Originally Posted by purgatory.sv

I know we assume we own the land.

I believe we can steward the land.

I'm not assuming I own my land as it is private land and not crown land.
Also the person that's leasing it from me gets no payments for the gas leases nor dose he control access to it
He's only paying to graze his cattle on it
The minute he thinks otherwise he'll be looking for somewhere else to graze his cattle.
Why should crown land be treated any different

[NCC]

Originally Posted by stringer

He is beening compensated.
Leased pasture $ 1.30 to $ 2.30 / AUM
Private pasture $39 to $45 / AUM

If I have a grazing lease I buy the lease, clear it, cultivate it, seed it, spray the weeds, and build and fix the the fence. When I rent per AUM ($30/month is the most I've ever paid) I drop the cows off and take them salt once in a while. I've had a couple of grazing leases ands after doing the math I just rent pasture now. It's not the golden goose some guys think it is. The ranchers getting rich off it are a small minority.

The game carrying capacity on a grazing lease in the forested areas is 10x what the native bush is.

[NCC]

Originally Posted by stringer

He is beening compensated.
Leased pasture $ 1.30 to $ 2.30 / AUM
Private pasture $39 to $45 / AUM

If I have a grazing lease I buy the lease, clear it, cultivate it, seed it, spray the weeds, and build and fix the the fence. When I rent per AUM ($30/month is the most I've ever paid) I drop the cows off and take them salt once in a while. I've had a couple of grazing leases ands after doing the math I just rent pasture now. It's not the golden goose some guys think it is. The ranchers getting rich off it are a small minority.

The game carrying capacity on a grazing lease in the forested areas is 10x what the native bush is.

[stringer]

Originally Posted by NCC

If I have a grazing lease I buy the lease, clear it, cultivate it, seed it, spray the weeds, and build and fix the the fence. When I rent per AUM ($30/month is the most I've ever paid) I drop the cows off and take them salt once in a while. I've had a couple of grazing leases ands after doing the math I just rent pasture now. It's not the golden goose some guys think it is. The ranchers getting rich off it are a small minority.

The game carrying capacity on a grazing lease in the forested areas is 10x what the native bush is.

The numbers I posted came from the Alberta gov and the cattle mans web sites and were for 2014.
If a rancher thinks he can't make a good enough living from raising cattle then he should get out of that business , we the tax payers shouldn't be expected to subsidize him.
I don't know about you but I pay way to much in taxes as it is.

[ImpartialObserver]

Originally Posted by stringer

The numbers I posted came from the Alberta gov and the cattle mans web sites and were for 2014.
If a rancher thinks he can't make a good enough living from raising cattle then he should get out of that business , we the tax payers shouldn't be expected to subsidize him.
I don't know about you but I pay way to much in taxes as it is.

The rancher pays taxes too, probably subsidizes someone too.

[stringer]

Originally Posted by ImpartialObserver

The rancher pays taxes too, probably subsidizes someone too.

Let me make this clear I'm talking about ranchers that graze their cattle on crown land for a fraction of the going rate for pasture and feel they have a right to collect any oil and gas revenue off of their lease.
Yes the ranchers that don't enjoy those benifits would in fact be subsidizing the other ranchers and would welcome a tax break I'm sure.