Kenney wants to sell crown land for profit

[cowmanbob]

[QUOTE=KegRiver;3892986]I wouldn't call it good arable land. If it were, it would already be farmland.


This is not quite the truth.

[CaberTosser]

Remember when the Government of Canada would give you free land just to move here?

[powersteve]

Originally Posted by Dean2

I posted the same thing and there is a pretty extensive thread on it. I was VERY surprised at how many people on here thought this was no big deal or fully supported it. This is NOT a good idea and selling public lands is how you end up like Texas or Germany with no public access to land that you don;t have to pay big bucks for.

No, selling ALL public lands is how you end up that way. Kenney doesn't want to do that, he only wants to sell a tiny fraction. 50% of Alberta is still Crown land so we're nowhere near 100% privatization.

Originally Posted by Dewey Cox

Sell some land, put the money on the books.
Then tax the land, and put that money in the books every year.
Sounds like a no brainer.

This.

[Gramps.257]

Originally Posted by sns2

If this becomes a politician bashing thread about individual politicians or parties. Everyone who participates is getting a suspension. Don't care if its my hunting partner, my wife or my mother. We are sick of dealing with guys who think they can flaunt the rules. If you can't make an argument without resorting to insults and bashing then you are an idiot. This is only being allowed as it affects the outdoors. You've been warned.

Lol at the irony

[German]

Originally Posted by CaberTosser

Remember when the Government of Canada would give you free land just to move here?

The good ole days.

[artie]

If you give them an inch or an in they will take it all. What about all the ranches and farms that are now being run with lease land. Government comes in sells your lease to their buddies and there goes the ranch.

[amosfella]

Originally Posted by German

The good ole days.

It wasn't free. It was $10 for a quarter of land.

[riden]

Originally Posted by CaberTosser

Remember when the Government of Canada would give you free land just to move here?

A good friend tells the story of his first winter in a forestry tent as a child. Had to fulfill the requirements of homesteading.

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by cowmanbob

This is not quite the truth.

LOL Okay, you live closer to it then I do, what do you know that I don't?

I know it is arable but isn't it gray wooded like the land around it?
I've tramped through some of it but never dug in any of it.

[JareS]

Originally Posted by CaberTosser

Remember when the Government of Canada would give you free land just to move here?

Man was I ever born in the wrong time!

It wasn't a cake walk in that time though, thats for sure. My Ukrainian ancestors who came here across the Atlantic lost of one the children to an illness on the way over, as did many others on the overcrowded boats

[CaberTosser]

Originally Posted by JareS

Man was I ever born in the wrong time!

It wasn't a cake walk in that time though, thats for sure. My Ukrainian ancestors who came here across the Atlantic lost of one the children to an illness on the way over, as did many others on the overcrowded boats

I'm more than a bit jealous about the lack of societal snowflakes back then. Darwin is getting cheated all too often these days.

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by JareS

Man was I ever born in the wrong time!

It wasn't a cake walk in that time though, thats for sure. My Ukrainian ancestors who came here across the Atlantic lost of one the children to an illness on the way over, as did many others on the overcrowded boats

A lot of homesteaders back then spent at least one winter living in what they called a dugout. Which was usually just a hole dug into a sidehill with the opening covered with logs or buffalo or moose hide with an opening for access.

Seems to me that would pretty much be like living in a bear den. Tough tough living conditions.

It was also a very long time ago. My folks remember it but I don't, and even they were pretty young when it was happening.

I know more about the equipment of the day. We used some of the more recent of that equipment. It was hard labor open to the elements, dust, bugs and nothing was hydraulic or padded.

Horses and equipment could be dangerous and stubborn. Clothing was often thread bare and very basic. Water only ran when junior was in a hurry to get his chores done. And medical help was non existent in most places.

Yeah land may have been free for a time, but it took a lot of hard work and hard living conditions to gain anything from that opportunity.

[Redhorse Ranch]

You're right about the quality of the land, Keg; I shouldn't have said GOOD arable land. Some of it is, but of course nowhere near the quality of the stuff along hiway #2. With the farming methods we're using today, the limiting factor is rain, almost regardless of the quality of the soil. I watch in awe these dawn-charging young tigers growing hellishly good crops on the heavy gumbo around here, and I'm amazed. Try really hard to emulate them, too. You CAN teach an old dog new tricks. I guess my main point is that opening up a few more townships to farming is a good thing.

[Tyler Duce]

I did a bit of research and wanted to share some really interesting insights with you all.

First off, Kenney said they would consider selling off something like 10,000 acres of crown land in the Peace Region. (If anyone else knows the exact figure please let me know, I'm pretty sure I remember hearing 10,000). Ten thousand acres is forty square kilometers. Forty square kilometers (square root of 40) is 6.3km x 6.3km, or exactly 8 x 8 quarter sections. If you were driving down the highway at 100kmph you would cover 6.3 kilometers in 3 mins 47 seconds.

My point? While 10,000 acres is a lot, its not a crazy a lot. It is not a firesale like the NDP want you to believe. (There are lease dispositions larger than this).

Second, Chris D Thomas is a world renowned biologist who has done some very intensive and interesting research on animal and plant diversity. He has documented that the areas in nature with the greatest levels of plant and animal diversity exist right on the shared boundary between the wild areas and human development. For example, where agricultural lands meet the large forests. He further explains that in order to keep a healthy balance it is recommenced that at least 30% of the pristine wild areas stay as such (protected, untouched, whatever term you want to use). An example of this would be parks (like Alberta has) or areas that are so remote and wild that they are minimally intruded upon when visited (so much of Alberta's mountains and hills).

As a hunter this makes a lot of sense. The overwhelming majority of the best elk hunting areas in Alberta are right where the agricultural lands meet the (largely untouched) woodlands (think Grande Prairie and Peace River areas). Go on google maps and turn on satellite view. Agricultural lands surrounded on all sides by forests.

Long story short, man altered lands can be a massive benefit to hunters and anglers.

If anyone is interested in reading more about this I'd recommend his book....here is the link to amazon.....

https://www.amazon.com/Inheritors-Ea.../dp/1610397274

What are your thoughts? Cheers.

[Silvercreek]

I don't think there is a huge demand or desire for many people to start buying land and setting up small scale farming operations.
The only ones that can afford it are the big farming corporations with the big factory type farms.
They are not going to let you hunt on their land.
This is a bad idea.

[WhiteTailAB]

I don't care if he sells it. Maybe myself and a buddy will buy some prime hunting land in a spot where rifle season starts in Sept. I care about an economy.

[Bushrat]

Originally Posted by Tyler Duce

I did a bit of research and wanted to share some really interesting insights with you all.

First off, Kenney said they would consider selling off something like 10,000 acres of crown land in the Peace Region. (If anyone else knows the exact figure please let me know, I'm pretty sure I remember hearing 10,000). Ten thousand acres is forty square kilometers. Forty square kilometers (square root of 40) is 6.3km x 6.3km, or exactly 8 x 8 quarter sections. If you were driving down the highway at 100kmph you would cover 6.3 kilometers in 3 mins 47 seconds.

My point? While 10,000 acres is a lot, its not a crazy a lot. It is not a firesale like the NDP want you to believe. (There are lease dispositions larger than this).

Second, Chris D Thomas is a world renowned biologist who has done some very intensive and interesting research on animal and plant diversity. He has documented that the areas in nature with the greatest levels of plant and animal diversity exist right on the shared boundary between the wild areas and human development. For example, where agricultural lands meet the large forests. He further explains that in order to keep a healthy balance it is recommenced that at least 30% of the pristine wild areas stay as such (protected, untouched, whatever term you want to use). An example of this would be parks (like Alberta has) or areas that are so remote and wild that they are minimally intruded upon when visited (so much of Alberta's mountains and hills).

As a hunter this makes a lot of sense. The overwhelming majority of the best elk hunting areas in Alberta are right where the agricultural lands meet the (largely untouched) woodlands (think Grande Prairie and Peace River areas). Go on google maps and turn on satellite view. Agricultural lands surrounded on all sides by forests.

Long story short, man altered lands can be a massive benefit to hunters and anglers.

If anyone is interested in reading more about this I'd recommend his book....here is the link to amazon.....

https://www.amazon.com/Inheritors-Ea.../dp/1610397274

What are your thoughts? Cheers.

Nice sales pitch. What you say may be true. Thing is most people here see this as a foot in the door. Are they testing the water? Is this the tip of the iceberg. Selling this little bit of land won't make a coon turd bit of difference in the general economic scheme of things, so why bother? Probably because this is only the beginning, if they can pull this off there will likely be more to come, otherwise what is the point of it? This needs to be nipped in the bud right now. You can't trust the gov't even if it is presently only a gov't in waiting. A message must be sent to Kenny and his cronies that this will not be tolerated and to drop this initiative toot suite. Already driving me and many thousands of other grass root supporters to question his credibility and fitness to govern our province.

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by Redhorse Ranch

You're right about the quality of the land, Keg; I shouldn't have said GOOD arable land. Some of it is, but of course nowhere near the quality of the stuff along hiway #2. With the farming methods we're using today, the limiting factor is rain, almost regardless of the quality of the soil. I watch in awe these dawn-charging young tigers growing hellishly good crops on the heavy gumbo around here, and I'm amazed. Try really hard to emulate them, too. You CAN teach an old dog new tricks. I guess my main point is that opening up a few more townships to farming is a good thing.

LOL It is interesting the crops this land produces. Lots of chemicals I guess.

But the river valleys like Carcajou for example produce better with little enhancement. Unfortunately there isn't a lot of river valley land. A drop in the bucket in the big picture.

[KegRiver]

I suspect I know what cowmanbob was thinking. I'm thinking some or maybe a lot of the land being considered has been applied for. I said it would have already been sold if it were good land but that is not true.
I know there is land right next to me that a neighbor has been trying to get but the government doesn't want it developed. It may even be some of the land being considered.

And that's another thing. The demand is there, and not from big corporate farms. There is always people looking to buy farm land and a good number of them are people wanting to get into farming.
Homestead land is in demand.
The Big Bend development by Carcajou proved that.

[Hilgy]

Originally Posted by sns2

If this becomes a politician bashing thread about individual politicians or parties. Everyone who participates is getting a suspension. Don't care if its my hunting partner, my wife or my mother. We are sick of dealing with guys who think they can flaunt the rules. If you can't make an argument without resorting to insults and bashing then you are an idiot. This is only being allowed as it affects the outdoors. You've been warned.

?????????

[Redhorse Ranch]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

LOL It is interesting the crops this land produces. Lots of chemicals I guess.

But the river valleys like Carcajou for example produce better with little enhancement. Unfortunately there isn't a lot of river valley land. A drop in the bucket in the big picture.

The new generation is using much LESS chemicals, actually. Their combines map yields over time, and this info is then shared with the seeding tool which varies the amount of fertilizer applied accordingly. They're using up to 20% less and growing more. Damndest thing. Some of those big sprayers have sensors which "see" weeds and turn on or off the jets when needed. As I understand it, this is mostly useful for burn-off, but still a huge saving. Keeping up is a real challenge for a fellow like me who's microwave is still flashing 12:00 - 12:00 - 12:00 ....

[last minute]

Originally Posted by ETOWNCANUCK

If selling crown land is such a bad idea why do we have private landownership to begin with ?

Lol I also would like to know ?????? COME ON lets hear it people i know someone has a answer .

[saskbooknut]

The question is not whether we should have private land, but whether all lands should be private? The best lands for agriculture are already private.
Some of us believe that the government should retain title for some lands, in trust for all residents. The provincial government is doing a poor job of habitat protection and enhancement for wildlife. Habitat protection becomes infinitely more difficult on private land.

[ReconWilly]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

A lot of homesteaders back then spent at least one winter living in what they called a dugout. Which was usually just a hole dug into a sidehill with the opening covered with logs or buffalo or moose hide with an opening for access.

Seems to me that would pretty much be like living in a bear den. Tough tough living conditions.

It was also a very long time ago. My folks remember it but I don't, and even they were pretty young when it was happening.

I know more about the equipment of the day. We used some of the more recent of that equipment. It was hard labor open to the elements, dust, bugs and nothing was hydraulic or padded.

Horses and equipment could be dangerous and stubborn. Clothing was often thread bare and very basic. Water only ran when junior was in a hurry to get his chores done. And medical help was non existent in most places.

Yeah land may have been free for a time, but it took a lot of hard work and hard living conditions to gain anything from that opportunity.

That all sounds amazing!, can i trade my vehicle, home and the internet for a horse and a bear den?

I have been telling everyone for years that i want to burrow into the side of a mountain and live in a cave!

I missed all the fun and adventure, brainwashed by the tv from day 1, exposed to toxic chemicals and FAKE NEWS ,herded down a marxist path of celebrity worshiping sjw hell...

[Dean2]

Originally Posted by saskbooknut

The question is not whether we should have private land, but whether all lands should be private? The best lands for agriculture are already private.
Some of us believe that the government should retain title for some lands, in trust for all residents. The provincial government is doing a poor job of habitat protection and enhancement for wildlife. Habitat protection becomes infinitely more difficult on private land.

Well said - spot on!

[JamesB]

There is no reason to keep the majority of the land in Alberta publicly owned. Obviously land was sold in the past and we have still managed to survive without it being publicly owned. There are enormous areas of public land that are leased for use and could quite easily be sold without changing anything substantial in the province.
It is also strange that some seem to think that publicly owned land will continue to be accessible. There is more than enough evidence that future "green" governments could very easily bar access to whatever places they deem "sensitive".

[ETOWNCANUCK]

Originally Posted by Dean2

Well said - spot on!

Not spot on at all.

The biggest land owners are owned by many levels of government or crown as it were.

Many reasons other than agriculture for land development.

when an area becomes populated and grows beyond the current limits then more land is usually annexed and as that population grows bigger more land is required and so on.

How else do villages and towns become cities and then even bigger cities, and large metropolitan areas?
That land ownership occurs somehow.

People are worried about loss of habitat and yet how many houses and cottages can you put around a lake before it dies?

The problem isn't Government, the problem is Population growth and it always will be.
And there isn't a dam thing we can do about a growing population except pulling a Decimation and having something wipe out the majority of the populace.

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by ETOWNCANUCK

Not spot on at all.

The biggest land owners are owned by many levels of government or crown as it were.

Many reasons other than agriculture for land development.

when an area becomes populated and grows beyond the current limits then more land is usually annexed and as that population grows bigger more land is required and so on.

How else do villages and towns become cities and then even bigger cities, and large metropolitan areas?
That land ownership occurs somehow.

People are worried about loss of habitat and yet how many houses and cottages can you put around a lake before it dies?

The problem isn't Government, the problem is Population growth and it always will be.
And there isn't a dam thing we can do about a growing population except pulling a Decimation and having something wipe out the majority of the populace.

Bingo. Do these people really expect the same amount of crown land when Alberta is 15 million strong?

[HalfBreed]

As long as First Nations individual or groups received first uncontested bids, I think that would be alright.

Oh the irony would be electric. A buy back as it were.

[Grizzly Adams]

Originally Posted by amosfella

It wasn't free. It was $10 for a quarter of land.

Veterans once got assistance to buy land , how times have changed.

Grizz