.......

[Deer Hunter]

Some people go so far to call it cowboy welfare.
Referring to $ paid to lessees off oil and gas surface payments on crown grazing leases.
What is your opinion?

https://albertawilderness.ca/download/file/fid/1716

I think that a lot of good leaseholders could be affected by the actions of a few who are taking advantage of the system. It's unfortunate but possibly a big revenue leak in this province today.

[Redfrog]

Link no work

[robson3954]

I don't think they should make profit, or at least any significant profit, but they should be compenstated fairly. For example, if a lease road is put through crop, they should be compensated for the annual loss of crop and perhaps a fee in proportion to the disruption of agricultural operations.

[HoytCRX32]

Originally Posted by robson3954

I don't think they should make profit, or at least any significant profit, but they should be compenstated fairly. For example, if a lease road is put through crop, they should be compensated for the annual loss of crop and perhaps a fee in proportion to the disruption of agricultural operations.

Crops? On Crown land?

[fish_e_o]

Originally Posted by HoytCRX32

Crops? On Crown land?

all the time

[HoytCRX32]

Originally Posted by fish_e_o

all the time

Who'd of thunk it

[7MM Mike]

Since no one seems to want to offer their opinion, here is my take:
Leaseholders are using a public resource for personal gain, whether it be grazing cattle etc. To offer compensation to the leaseholder for surface disturbance in my opinion amounts to stealing from the public. The land is publicly owned - not privately owned.
These payments should be made to the Alberta gov't.
If anything is to be offered to a current or future leasee, it should be a lower lease rate to compensate for the lost grazing (or other) opportunity the surface disturbance has resulted in.
Obviously those that profit from "Cowboy Welfare" will wholeheartedly disagree, and why wouldn't you? this likely adds significantly to the bottom line in a tough business for some leaseholders. But - that doesn't make it right.

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by 7MM Mike

Since no one seems to want to offer their opinion, here is my take:
Leaseholders are using a public resource for personal gain, whether it be grazing cattle etc. To offer compensation to the leaseholder for surface disturbance in my opinion amounts to stealing from the public. The land is publicly owned - not privately owned.
These payments should be made to the Alberta gov't.
If anything is to be offered to a current or future leasee, it should be a lower lease rate to compensate for the lost grazing (or other) opportunity the surface disturbance has resulted in.
Obviously those that profit from "Cowboy Welfare" will wholeheartedly disagree, and why wouldn't you? this likely adds significantly to the bottom line in a tough business for some leaseholders. But - that doesn't make it right.

I agree. Payments should be made to govt, who in turn should asess the damage and re adjust lease rates accordingly.

[Yaha Tinda]

Originally Posted by Talking moose

.....asess the damage and re adjust lease rates accordingly.

Oil activity may actually increases the grazability of a lease and the fees should go up accordingly.

[xmastree]

Originally Posted by Yaha Tinda

Oil activity may actually increases the grazability of a lease and the fees should go up accordingly.

It usually does, certainly doesn't decrease it.

[colroggal]

Originally Posted by 7MM Mike

Since no one seems to want to offer their opinion, here is my take:
Leaseholders are using a public resource for personal gain, whether it be grazing cattle etc. To offer compensation to the leaseholder for surface disturbance in my opinion amounts to stealing from the public. The land is publicly owned - not privately owned.
These payments should be made to the Alberta gov't.
If anything is to be offered to a current or future leasee, it should be a lower lease rate to compensate for the lost grazing (or other) opportunity the surface disturbance has resulted in.
Obviously those that profit from "Cowboy Welfare" will wholeheartedly disagree, and why wouldn't you? this likely adds significantly to the bottom line in a tough business for some leaseholders. But - that doesn't make it right.

Exactly.

[mich]

Originally Posted by 7MM Mike

Since no one seems to want to offer their opinion, here is my take:
Leaseholders are using a public resource for personal gain, whether it be grazing cattle etc. To offer compensation to the leaseholder for surface disturbance in my opinion amounts to stealing from the public. The land is publicly owned - not privately owned.
These payments should be made to the Alberta gov't.
If anything is to be offered to a current or future leasee, it should be a lower lease rate to compensate for the lost grazing (or other) opportunity the surface disturbance has resulted in.
Obviously those that profit from "Cowboy Welfare" will wholeheartedly disagree, and why wouldn't you? this likely adds significantly to the bottom line in a tough business for some leaseholders. But - that doesn't make it right.

So if you lease a building from the government you shouldn't make a profit running your business in it?

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by mich

So if you lease a building from the government you shouldn't make a profit running your business in it?

You make a profit from your business, not the building itself.....

[Jordan Smith]

Originally Posted by 7MM Mike

Since no one seems to want to offer their opinion, here is my take:
Leaseholders are using a public resource for personal gain, whether it be grazing cattle etc. To offer compensation to the leaseholder for surface disturbance in my opinion amounts to stealing from the public. The land is publicly owned - not privately owned.
These payments should be made to the Alberta gov't.
If anything is to be offered to a current or future leasee, it should be a lower lease rate to compensate for the lost grazing (or other) opportunity the surface disturbance has resulted in.
Obviously those that profit from "Cowboy Welfare" will wholeheartedly disagree, and why wouldn't you? this likely adds significantly to the bottom line in a tough business for some leaseholders. But - that doesn't make it right.

+1

[randster]

Originally Posted by Deer Hunter

Some people go so far to call it cowboy welfare.
Referring to $ paid to lessees off oil and gas surface payments on crown grazing leases.
What is your opinion?

https://albertawilderness.ca/download/file/fid/1716

I think that a lot of good leaseholders could be affected by the actions of a few who are taking advantage of the system. It's unfortunate but possibly a big revenue leak in this province today.

Good article thanks for posting

[mich]

Originally Posted by Talking moose

You make a profit from your business, not the building itself.....

The building is required to run said business and paid for by the business, and leased from the government......same as a grazing lease holder who makes his money running his business on leased land

So since the government owns the building should Joe public be able to wander through anytime they want?

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by mich

The building is required to run said business and paid for by the business, and leased from the government......same as a grazing lease holder who makes his money running his business on leased land

So since the government owns the building should Joe public be able to wander through anytime they want?

Of course not. Poor comparison. Very poor.

[diamond k]

Very interesting read. I have always said without a strong lobby group such as AFGA or SCI willing to go up against mega groups like CCA or Alberta Beef Producers this will never change.

[Pbryant]

I don't have a problem with profiting from lease land myself. I would rather the farmer get the money and put it back into there community in one way or another rather than the government get it. Without the public knowing how much the royalties were I'm sure the government would **** it away on all of the wrong things. I personally don't trust any government provincial or federal. They live in fantasy land. They proved this last week when a 7 percent raise was approved for government consultants. I know they changed it after the public out rage but come on. The rest of us are loosing jobs and they thought that was a good idea????? Crazy. I think this was a good thread guys. Happy hunting this year.

[ImpartialObserver]

The rancher is also a member of the public, but he is the only one who pays the government a fee to use the land.

[J0HN_R1]

Originally Posted by ImpartialObserver

The rancher is also a member of the public, but he is the only one who pays the government a fee to use the land.

Because he/she is PROFITING from it... If you don't like the "fee", don't use the land to make a profit.

Simple.

Half you guys seems to forget, "leasing" is another word for "RENTING".

Savvy ?

[ImpartialObserver]

Originally Posted by J0HN_R1

Because he/she is PROFITING from it... If you don't like the "fee", don't use the land to make a profit.

Simple.

Half you guys seems to forget, "leasing" is another word for "RENTING".

Savy ?

So he is guaranteed a profit?

He pays for access to the grass to feed his cows.

Do hunters pay for access to the game to feed their family?

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by ImpartialObserver

So he is guaranteed a profit?

He pays for access to the grass to feed his cows.

Do hunters pay for access to the game to feed their family?

Your not seeming very impartial....casual is more like it....
Good points none the less.

[purgatory.sv]

The link worked.

It was a document.

What I took from the document was accountability.

I didn’t see a return on the investment of the share holders.

The original post has brought forward valid concerns.

[ImpartialObserver]

Originally Posted by Talking moose

Your not seeming very impartial....casual is more like it....
Good points none the less.

I have no dog in this fight. I just look at it from both sides.

[qmurphy]

And... Is the public going to start bearing the cost of maintaining fences and all other infrastructure necessary for the lease holder to use the land for the purpose of grazing cattle.

If this was the case, I'm sure a lot of lease holders would be thrilled.

To compare these leases to either residential or commercial leases is apples to oranges

[J0HN_R1]

Originally Posted by ImpartialObserver

So he is guaranteed a profit?

He pays for access to the grass to feed his cows.

Do hunters pay for access to the game to feed their family?

The game doesn't feed livestock, nor is the wild game a "permanent fixture". Gov't owns the land, not the animals passing thru.

And hunters on grazing leases isn't the issue at hand.

Ranchers stealing money from gov't coffers (in the form of oil revenue) is...

[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.

[GFY]

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.

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.

[ImpartialObserver]

Originally Posted by J0HN_R1

The game doesn't feed livestock, nor is the wild game a "permanent fixture". Gov't owns the land, not the animals passing thru.

And hunters on grazing leases isn't the issue at hand.

Ranchers stealing money from gov't coffers (in the form of oil revenue) is...

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?