....... - Page 5

ImpartialObserver · #**121** 10-04-2015, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FCLightning

Royalties are the fees the gas companies pay for the public resource they consume. At least the gov'ts of past and present are looking at them from time to time and making adjustments on whatever business rationale they are applying. Gov't of past have also looked at the fees paid by the hunter for the public resource they consume. When was the last review of grazing lease AUM fees?
Secondly, what does the fee that any one group pays to harvest a public resource have to do with whether lease holders should be given money that is rightfully the property of the landowner? In no ones world is this a justifiable action.

If they want to review AUM fees, fine. I would also expect the same hue and cry over that as we see over the proposed royalty review.

The rancher is the landowner too.

FCLightning · #**122** 10-04-2015, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ImpartialObserver

If they want to review AUM fees, fine. I would also expect the same hue and cry over that as we see over the proposed royalty review.

The rancher is the landowner too.

I suspect so - except it will be a rather quiet hue and cry since the only crying will be done at the ACC and Beef Producers lobbies.
What land does the rancher own? No one would ever question the right of a rancher to receive the surface lease payments on land which is deeded in his name. A grazing lease is not a deed. I wonder ... if I rented pasture from my neighbor do you think they would give me surface lease annuals from the 3 wells on it?

ImpartialObserver · #**123** 10-04-2015, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FCLightning

I suspect so - except it will be a rather quiet hue and cry since the only crying will be done at the ACC and Beef Producers lobbies.
What land does the rancher own? No one would ever question the right of a rancher to receive the surface lease payments on land which is deeded in his name. A grazing lease is not a deed. I wonder ... if I rented pasture from my neighbor do you think they would give me surface lease annuals from the 3 wells on it?

Yes I expect it would be, none of the guys complaining about an oil royalty review would oppose it.

The rancher owns the public land as much as any other Albertan.

If it was agreed to in your contract should a third party have a say in the terms?

FCLightning · #**124** 10-04-2015, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ImpartialObserver

The rancher owns the public land as much as any other Albertan.

If it was agreed to in your contract should a third party have a say in the terms?

Oh .. That's your slant. Well, as part owner of the land I should be entitled to the same share of revenues generated from the land as he should - we both own it equally as much. Silly, silly viewpoint - it would be ridiculous to pool all revenues from surface leases and pay them out to each and every taxpayer in the province on a pro-rata basis directly. But not so ridiculous as assuming that a 0.00002 percent shareholder would be paid all the money. Put them in gov't revenues and if it were sufficient to warrant it, reduce the income tax accordingly thereby distributing the money.

But we aren't talking a third party here - the people speaking up about this are the landowners - and our agent, the gov't is the one that should be listening. And yes, I have voiced my concern to the applicable ministry.

ImpartialObserver · #**125** 10-04-2015, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FCLightning

Oh .. That's your slant. Well, as part owner of the land I should be entitled to the same share of revenues generated from the land as he should - we both own it equally as much. Silly, silly viewpoint - it would be ridiculous to pool all revenues from surface leases and pay them out to each and every taxpayer in the province on a pro-rata basis directly. But not so ridiculous as assuming that a 0.00002 percent shareholder would be paid all the money. Put them in gov't revenues and if it were sufficient to warrant it, reduce the income tax accordingly thereby distributing the money.

But we aren't talking a third party here - the people speaking up about this are the landowners - and our agent, the gov't is the one that should be listening. And yes, I have voiced my concern to the applicable ministry.

The government is also the agent of the rancher/landowner. If you think that making the ranchers business less profitable will lower your taxes then wouldn't an increase in oil royalty rates do the same.

Have you voiced your concern to that ministry too?

Talking moose · #**126** 10-04-2015, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ImpartialObserver

The government is also the agent of the rancher/landowner. If you think that making the ranchers business less profitable will lower your taxes then wouldn't an increase in oil royalty rates do the same.

Have you voiced your concern to that ministry too?

No. An increase in oil royalties will drive work away. Bad.

Mulehahn · #**127** 10-04-2015, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ImpartialObserver

We are not talking about private land. If you want it set up like a private lease then you should be willing to have the same access rules as private land.

Yet there are numerous private leases that allows the owner to dictate who has access to the land, when the cattle have to be off, and so forth. The leaser can either abide by these rules or find somewhere else. But that is not the point of this thread.

This thread is about "cowbot welfare," companies paying the leaser to access land he does not own. People use the example of a building. If I lease a building for 1 year, my lease expires in one year. If the owner comes to me in one year stating that we need to take 10% of your space, but we will reduce your fees accordingly. I have no real say in the matter. I have to accept the deal or move. That is the way a lease works.

bwcweld · #**128** 10-04-2015, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talking moose

Don't know. Highly doubt it.

Yes they do

ImpartialObserver · #**129** 10-04-2015, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talking moose

No. An increase in oil royalties will drive work away. Bad.

No jobs that rely on the ranching industry in Alberta?

bwcweld · #**130** 10-04-2015, 08:31 PM

But it's the way she goes boys. There's a lot more crooked deals that have gone on that you should be more worried about being re imbursed for. Like all the oil and gas activity that goes on within our many grazing reserves that NOBODY gets a dime out of. Free for all for the oil companies. A gift you may say. No surface revenue access revenue. NOTHING. Add that up over decades and would make this "cowboy welfare" look like pennies. But keep up with the socialist mentality. Keep voting orange. Hunting will be non existent. Guns will be a thing of the past. What's yours and mine will be the governments. Beef ranching will not exist. Be as entitled as you want. But don't **** on the farmers and ranchers of this province

Talking moose · #**131** 10-04-2015, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ImpartialObserver

No jobs that rely on the ranching industry in Alberta?

What are you talking about? Nobody is taking away from ranchers leasing land. You have to own something before it can be taken away from you.

MountainTi · #**132** 10-04-2015, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ImpartialObserver

Do you pay property tax on the building or does the owner?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talking moose

Technically the owner. In reality the renter

Quote:

Originally Posted by ImpartialObserver

Does the rancher have to pay property tax to the county on the leased land?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talking moose

Don't know. Highly doubt it.

Oh yeah? Huh

ImpartialObserver · #**133** 10-04-2015, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talking moose

What are you talking about? Nobody is taking away from ranchers leasing land. You have to own something before it can be taken away from you.

Nobody taking away oil companies oil. They don't own the oil either.

Just talking about making both industries less profitable. It will cause loss of support jobs in both sectors.

FCLightning · #**134** 10-04-2015, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ImpartialObserver

The government is also the agent of the rancher/landowner. If you think that making the ranchers business less profitable will lower your taxes then wouldn't an increase in oil royalty rates do the same.

Have you voiced your concern to that ministry too?

You keep throwing that red herring out. Royalty rates and AUM payments are the equivalent. There is no oil industry handout that equates to the surface lease payments that are being given to the lessee and not the owner. If there were I would most certainly be contacting someone to have it changed.

As for your "profitability"... There are lots of cattle folks throughout this province that are making a profit at $35+ AUM payments. Are you sure these ranchers cannot make money with a $165+/head subsidy from the gov't and they absolutely need to have the surface lease money as well?

ImpartialObserver · #**135** 10-05-2015, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FCLightning

You keep throwing that red herring out. Royalty rates and AUM payments are the equivalent. There is no oil industry handout that equates to the surface lease payments that are being given to the lessee and not the owner. If there were I would most certainly be contacting someone to have it changed.

As for your "profitability"... There are lots of cattle folks throughout this province that are making a profit at $35+ AUM payments. Are you sure these ranchers cannot make money with a $165+/head subsidy from the gov't and they absolutely need to have the surface lease money as well?

It is you that brought up an AUM review. So if you are for that you must be for a royalty rate review also, seeing as they are equivalent.

So are you advocating that government limit how much profit business makes? How much profit should a rancher make, 2%, 5%, 10%, 25%?

If rancher A makes 10% and rancher B makes 15% should the government take the extra 5% away from rancher B because rancher A is getting along on 10%?

HoytCRX32 · #**136** 10-05-2015, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bwcweld

Little do you know lease pasture costs between 200 to 1200 dollars an acre to purchase the lease. So yes there is an initial investment unless by chance it was given to them

$1,200.00/acre to "purchase" a lease?? Oxymoron.

HoytCRX32 · #**137** 10-05-2015, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talking moose

They pay to have cows there. Not access. Your wrong.

Exactly! IP seems to have a real problem with this concept. This is what a meant earlier when I said the real problem is when the lessees are more interested in the land than the cattle.

rcmc · #**138** 10-05-2015, 08:05 AM

A question for ImpatialObserver, why is there such a large difference between the rates paid (AUM) between Govt lease and renting private lease?

ImpartialObserver · #**139** 10-05-2015, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rcmc

A question for ImpatialObserver, why is there such a large difference between the rates paid (AUM) between Govt lease and renting private lease?

I don't know. It could be that that the government sees the importance of a healthy beef industry to the provincial economy and private leasers have only their own self interest in mind.

I agree with both those positions.

MountainTi · #**140** 10-05-2015, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rcmc

A question for ImpatialObserver, why is there such a large difference between the rates paid (AUM) between Govt lease and renting private lease?

When you are paying $30/pair per month for private pasture rental, it is ready to drop cows into. Fences are up and maintained, water is there. As mentioned earlier, stop by once in a while with a bag of salt. Lease land......a totally different story. It is all up to you. Check out custom fencing rates. Price per foot of water wells. Hourly rates for equipment to dig dugouts. Taxes....list goes on

FCLightning · #**141** 10-05-2015, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ImpartialObserver

It is you that brought up an AUM review. So if you are for that you must be for a royalty rate review also, seeing as they are equivalent.

Again with the irrelevant extrapolations. But yes, I do feel that the fees paid to the gov't for resources should be regularly reviewed and if they are found to be out of line with industry averages then adjustments should be made.
The only people worried about a "review" are those folks who know they are paying too little and would like to keep flying under the radar for longer. If the payments are fair, then a review is no source of concern because you know that changes are not coming.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ImpartialObserver

So are you advocating that government limit how much profit business makes? How much profit should a rancher make, 2%, 5%, 10%, 25%?

Either you have an overactive mind and you can't keep track of which thought was which, or you are intentionally trying to change angles. You are absolutely correct - the gov't should not be in the business of making profit for business. So why should the gov't be giving one sector of the business an artificial profit of $165/head? However, this is just a distraction from the real issue of discussion hear - the absolute giveaway/handout of monies that are not related to the operation at all being given to some and not to others. You are completely avoiding the issue of surface lease payments going to the lessee and not the owner - a ludicrous and undefendable action by any account.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ImpartialObserver

If rancher A makes 10% and rancher B makes 15% should the government take the extra 5% away from rancher B because rancher A is getting along on 10%?

NO, the gov't should be taking away from all on a more or less equal basis through a taxation system - certainly if you make more profit you will contribute more taxes, but that is not a form of equalization, it is a pay your fair share system.
You really grasping at straws here with your gyrating angles. Try to focus on the topic - 1) Should the owner of the land or the renter of the land receive the surface lease payments.
2) Are the AUM rates the gov't charges for grass consumption fair given current market rates.

pikeslayer22 · #**142** 10-05-2015, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MountainTi

When you are paying $30/pair per month for private pasture rental, it is ready to drop cows into. Fences are up and maintained, water is there. As mentioned earlier, stop by once in a while with a bag of salt. Lease land......a totally different story. It is all up to you. Check out custom fencing rates. Price per foot of water wells. Hourly rates for equipment to dig dugouts. Taxes....list goes on

^^^This...Purchased lease land at a public auction 1/2 section for 40K. Had to put up 1.5 miles of fence and dig dugouts...build Catch pens and approach's. Not sure where the 1.65 per day AUM is coming from?

Another thing is Yes the Leasee pays the municipal taxes yearly not the crown

As for any monie's paid for surface leases I have none but would agree it should go back to the crown.

Said it before and will say it again...Sell all crown leases to the highest bidder and get rid of the bickering!

MountainTi · #**143** 10-05-2015, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pikeslayer22

^^^This...Purchased lease land at a public auction 1/2 section for 40K. Had to put up 1.5 miles of fence and dig dugouts...build Catch pens and approach's. Not sure where the 1.65 per day AUM is coming from?

Another thing is Yes the Leasee pays the municipal taxes yearly not the crown

As for any monie's paid for surface leases I have none but would agree it should go back to the crown.

Said it before and will say it again...Sell all crown leases to the highest bidder and get rid of the bickering!

As with every thread that pops up on this subject, it is full of incorrect information. Nothing new here.
Only thing I don't agree with is selling to the highest bidder, and I doubt government sees it that way either. The tens of thousands of acres of grasslands are needed for agricultural purposes. Gotta feed the city folk

As I have said before, first right of refusal, fair market value minus monies already invested. I don't think this is that far away the way it is going. Who do you think the government is gonna side with? Agricultural producers or a few recreationalists? They will grow weary of the belly aching one of these days

rcmc · #**144** 10-05-2015, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MountainTi

When you are paying $30/pair per month for private pasture rental, it is ready to drop cows into. Fences are up and maintained, water is there. As mentioned earlier, stop by once in a while with a bag of salt. Lease land......a totally different story. It is all up to you. Check out custom fencing rates. Price per foot of water wells. Hourly rates for equipment to dig dugouts. Taxes....list goes on

You brought up some very good points, thanks for helping some us understand what is involved.

HoytCRX32 · #**145** 10-05-2015, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MountainTi

When you are paying $30/pair per month for private pasture rental, it is ready to drop cows into. Fences are up and maintained, water is there. As mentioned earlier, stop by once in a while with a bag of salt. Lease land......a totally different story. It is all up to you. Check out custom fencing rates. Price per foot of water wells. Hourly rates for equipment to dig dugouts. Taxes....list goes on

And if you weren't profiting from it you wouldn't do it. You make it sound as if you are somehow losing or going out of your way by leasing the land. Where exactly is this pristine lease land that has no fences, no water, no dugouts?

Sneeze · #**146** 10-05-2015, 12:05 PM

Lease land is a pyramid scheme. I feel bad for guys that got in on the bottom.

There is a shake up coming that could bring this whole pyramid scheme to its knees, guys will loose everything.

That is why the lease holders will fight tooth and nail against change.

FCLightning · #**147** 10-05-2015, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HoytCRX32

Where exactly is this pristine lease land that has no fences, no water, no dugouts?

Seems like pikeslayer found some to buy - no fencing, no water, no access but he only paid $40,000 to the previous leaseholder for the lease rights. I hope the fellow is grateful for the donation.

Just in case some other folks on here are not clear on this - the gov't (public owners) received ZERO of the $40,000.

DustDee · #**148** 10-05-2015, 01:06 PM

Hey, if the current market dictates that lease land is worth that much, then so be it. There must be enough demand to rent land from the government that people are willing to pay money just for that opportunity. I don't see the problem here.

pikeslayer22 · #**149** 10-05-2015, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FCLightning

Seems like pikeslayer found some to buy - no fencing, no water, no access but he only paid $40,000 to the previous leaseholder for the lease rights. I hope the fellow is grateful for the donation.

Just in case some other folks on here are not clear on this - the gov't (public owners) received ZERO of the $40,000.

In correct FCLightning...the funds went into the goverment coffers as this land came up due to the previous lease holders not following the terms of the lease

FCLightning · #**150** 10-05-2015, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pikeslayer22

In correct FCLightning...the funds went into the goverment coffers as this land came up due to the previous lease holders not following the terms of the lease

Sorry - I should have clued in when you said public auction - but I have seen leases sold at farm auctions before as well.

I have seen some leases that were neglected for a very long time and have sometimes wondered how the enforcement of the conditions of the lease were handled - it seems that sometimes they must be if you purchased a seized allocation. It also answers the question of how you came by a lease property that had no fence, water or access - must have been an awfully long time that the terms of the lease were not being followed before it was seized.

In normal conditions of the sale of these lease agreements the money exchanges hands from one private individual to the other and the crown sees none of it (save for the registration/transfer fee).