Grazing lease misuse ?

[dsopkow]

Originally Posted by OpenRange

I bought another 4 sections of lease land all in one block, cost a tidy sum of $850,000. Oh yeah, then I had to pay the lease transfer fee,about $25,000, to transfer the acre titles to my company name and then pay the annual rentals for each acre. Someone PLEASE tell me where I can get those acres for nothing and graze cattle for just a minor annual rental, I would take as much as I could get. The way it seems to be going is I'm supposed to lay out that kind of money, let someone drive into the place and start a fire with their catalytic converter then I have to pay to fence it off for 4 years while the land recovers all while paying the mortgage with no income coming from the property. But hey, at least that guy saw a couple antelope, I mean, that's the most important thing isn't it?

Sounds to me like you have a pretty crappy business plan..? Perhaps you should have investigated the penalties for breaking a lease agreement prior to committing to the purchase or the ramifications for entering into the lease agreement in the first place.

Just saying

[hillbillyreefer]

Originally Posted by dsopkow

Sounds to me like you have a pretty crappy business plan..? Perhaps you should have investigated the penalties for breaking a lease agreement prior to committing to the purchase or the ramifications for entering into the lease agreement in the first place.

Just saying

Openrange knows exactly what he is doing, as do most ranchers and farmers. Thanks for your input.

Just saying

[hillbillyreefer]

bobalong and harv3589 most guys that are respectful and ask permission will still have lots of opportunity to hunt both deeded and lease in a lot of areas. Although my neighborhood is unique access is pretty easy all around.

[CBintheNorth]

Originally Posted by dsopkow

Your point isn't arguable. In fact, you sound very uneducated on the matter.

Yes, I do own the land that I bought in the City. Check at Alberta Land Registries if you choose to disagree. I bet you'll find that it says I own it and that it also comes with a legal property report which identifies the extent of my property limits, with actual legal surveyed pins in the the ground. Come on buddy. Are you for real?



And, the City cannot come and take my land.

I always thought that last sentence was humorous.....if you really want to know who the owner of your lot is, quit paying the taxes and you'll find out.

[pickrel pat]

Originally Posted by CBintheNorth

I always thought that last sentence was humorous.....if you really want to know who the owner of your lot is, quit paying the taxes and you'll find out.

So true.... So true.... You might own the title(a peice of paper) but you never really own the land.

[huntingd]

Is ownership in the city any different than the country? If you don't pay taxes on your land what happens?

[hillbillyreefer]

Originally Posted by huntingd

Is ownership in the city any different than the country? If you don't pay taxes on your land what happens?

Same thing as in the city. The same gov't forfeiture rules.

[Saltmania]

Originally Posted by bobalong

Examples like you have given have been stated on here over and over, but the "losers" you mentioned continue to grow by leaps and bounds. Just look at the posts on here over the last month trashing landowners.

With the number of idiots out there now, and the damage they are doing, I am surprised the lease holders have not lobbied to keep there cows/horses on the lease until November 30 every year. This may never happen, but if there are negotiations initiated with the government to review lease land access, and the examples of vandalism that the landowners will provide, you can almost guarantee that hunting access to lease land is going to decrease substantially.

Unfortunately the majority of hunters who still know what respect is, are going to be denied access as well.

The point that seems to be missed here is we're not trashing landowners or even leaseholders in general!

We're complaining about the select few leaseholders who are exceeding their authority by attempting to deny access to legitimate users. I'd wager that the majority of people who go to the effort of contacting and developing a relationship with leaseholders are not the ones causing most of the problems.

On the same note, leaseholders are also right to complain about hunters abusing and violating access conditions. Nobody here is defending the vandals, slobs, or thieves. But I suspect that those examples where hunters who had contacted and requested permission to access a lease and then gone ahead and cut fences anyway are the exception to the rule. It seems to me that when a hunter contacts the leaseholder, that would be a good time to review access conditions so they understand what they can and cannot do.

I understand and appreciate that leaseholders have to deal with the issues mentioned earlier and I'm sorry to hear it. At the same time, it's an unfortunate reality that these issues will occur - likely more often than on private land and this is something leaseholders should consider when purchasing a lease.

I can totally respect landowners denying access to their private land - that's their prerogative.

As for denying access due to issues like too many hunters or too many animals harvested, well in my opinion open communication goes a long way.

For example instead of saying "nope, too many hunters" say "well OK, but so you know it will be awfully crowded and possibly dangerous as two other parties already requested access for this weekend"

Or instead of "nope, too many animals harvested", how about "I don't recommend it as the deer population has been pressured really hard this season already - if you still want some deer around come back next year earlier in the season"

I think most reasonable people would take your advice but it really chaps them when you "deny" them summarily.

This is the last post I make on the subject this year. Hopefully you don't still think I'm some ignorant city idiot.

[cavindish72]

This is a classic case of a few people wrecking it for all.
For those who may have trouble figuring out the whole access rights debate just remember that for what ever facts ya all want to throw around and make points on, one has to ask themselves before posting on here " is this the hill I want to have a battle on" because at the end of the day I am willing to bet that ,right or wrong, there are some landowners with lease land on this site that are going to be a little harder to gain access through and the more entitled you feel you are to have access the more rejection you will find!
I know some of the landowners on this thread and can guarantee you that they have hunters of all backgrounds on their land with invites back for next year to the ones that respect the land and the landowner. The ones that don't care to do either will be on this site again next year wondering why?

[sjemac]

Originally Posted by cavindish72

This is a classic case of a few people wrecking it for all.
For those who may have trouble figuring out the whole access rights debate just remember that for what ever facts ya all want to throw around and make points on, one has to ask themselves before posting on here " is this the hill I want to have a battle on" because at the end of the day I am willing to bet that ,right or wrong, there are some landowners with lease land on this site that are going to be a little harder to gain access through and the more entitled you feel you are to have access the more rejection you will find!
I know some of the landowners on this thread and can guarantee you that they have hunters of all backgrounds on their land with invites back for next year to the ones that respect the land and the landowner. The ones that don't care to do either will be on this site again next year wondering why?

Landowners that are playing games to deny access to their leases are not landowners granting permission to hunters in general -- other than their clients, family, or cronies. You can bet that they tie their private land down tight. They do not have the same right on leased land. They still try. It is up to us to make sure that they have to allow reasonable access to our public lands.

Some of the conditions I see posted are not reasonable in my opinion. We have one guy here in my area who is an outfitter and demands 30 days notice and access only with written confirmation. That is not reasonable access since I know for a fact he does not put one carcass of cattle on any of that lease land.

[bobalong]

Originally Posted by Saltmania

The point that seems to be missed here is we're not trashing landowners or even leaseholders in general!

We're complaining about the select few leaseholders who are exceeding their authority by attempting to deny access to legitimate users. I'd wager that the majority of people who go to the effort of contacting and developing a relationship with leaseholders are not the ones causing most of the problems.

On the same note, leaseholders are also right to complain about hunters abusing and violating access conditions. Nobody here is defending the vandals, slobs, or thieves. But I suspect that those examples where hunters who had contacted and requested permission to access a lease and then gone ahead and cut fences anyway are the exception to the rule. It seems to me that when a hunter contacts the leaseholder, that would be a good time to review access conditions so they understand what they can and cannot do.

I understand and appreciate that leaseholders have to deal with the issues mentioned earlier and I'm sorry to hear it. At the same time, it's an unfortunate reality that these issues will occur - likely more often than on private land and this is something leaseholders should consider when purchasing a lease.

I can totally respect landowners denying access to their private land - that's their prerogative.

As for denying access due to issues like too many hunters or too many animals harvested, well in my opinion open communication goes a long way.

For example instead of saying "nope, too many hunters" say "well OK, but so you know it will be awfully crowded and possibly dangerous as two other parties already requested access for this weekend"

Or instead of "nope, too many animals harvested", how about "I don't recommend it as the deer population has been pressured really hard this season already - if you still want some deer around come back next year earlier in the season"

I think most reasonable people would take your advice but it really chaps them when you "deny" them summarily.

This is the last post I make on the subject this year. Hopefully you don't still think I'm some ignorant city idiot.

You don't sound like an ignorant city idiot at all, but what I have seen on here is a lot of almost "hatred" directed toward landowner/lease holders. Are they all perfect, hell no, but what happens is vandalism keeps going on, and the landowner/lease holders just get fed up.

I can appreciate some hunters frustration, but they must try and understand the landowner/lease holders frustration as well. If you were a lease holder how many times would you have to repair fences, gates,ruts etc, before you got totally frustrated, and finally said enough is enough. The one point that keeps coming up is that lease holders are treating the lease land like a private hunting preserve, only letting family and friends hunt there. That may be the case sometimes (and that is wrong) but the majority of them do it for lease land, for the same reason they do it for private land it is because THEY CAN TRUST THEM. Just ask yourself "do I trust someone I know more, than someone I don't" with regard to almost any issue. I just can't believe that some people can not seem to understand that.

There was one member on here who suggested that hunters should lobby to have unrestricted access to lease land. Can you imagine how a negotiation would go with a government "round table" on lease land access. Typical "round tables" try and include a few stake holders to resolve issues. You may have some hunters, outfitters, government reps, AFGA etc, and of course some landowner/lease holders.

The landowner/lease operator have been the steward of lease land for decades, and some for generations. They have cared for the land, completed improvements to it, and use it as part of their farming operation to make a living. They put work into the lease and in turn, it allows them to generate income from it, pretty simple concept actually. They would also come with numerous examples (and possibly pictures) of vandalism and abuse on the land they lease.

Now let us look at what the other stakeholders contribute to the lease. IMO most people having trouble trying to access a lease are not local, as locals have their own lease and private land to hunt on, or typically have friends/relatives that do. So what you have is a group of people, the majority that are from outside the area, a lot of them from the city. There are hunters from neighbouring communities that will travel to other areas to hunt as well, but my observation is that they usually hunt in their "own" areas because they know the landowners and the animal patterns better there. They do travel to other areas to hunt species not available in their area though.

So I ask, if you were the government rep sitting around the table listening to all the discussion and you had to make a determination on what was being said, you will (or I would anyway) consider this. On one side you have a family operation who is caring for the land and in turn this land is helping you to make a living. These people have usually lived in the area for years, have other deeded land in the area, and contribute daily to the good of the community. The "product" they are producing helps to feed the country.

On the other hand you have people coming into an area, often knowing no one, contributing nothing, except possibly some gas, and a meal at the local restaurant. They basically have no link to the community at all, they have come to give nothing, they have only come to TAKE.

My point, and I have made it before. Landowners in general are an understanding and pretty easy going bunch, but DO NOT mistake their understanding nature as weakness. You back them into a corner, and think you are going to "tell" them what is going to happen with a part of their operation/livelihood and you may unleash a hell that no one wants to see.

[mark-edmonton]

Originally Posted by bignixs

I am a land owners and let lots of guys on every year, that's on my private land. The debate here is about public land and a few lease holders on that public land not following the law and restricting the rights of Albertans to their public land. This is not England.

Exactly

[hillbillyreefer]

Originally Posted by sjemac

Landowners that are playing games to deny access to their leases are not landowners granting permission to hunters in general -- other than their clients, family, or cronies. You can bet that they tie their private land down tight. They do not have the same right on leased land. They still try. It is up to us to make sure that they have to allow reasonable access to our public lands.

Some of the conditions I see posted are not reasonable in my opinion. We have one guy here in my area who is an outfitter and demands 30 days notice and access only with written confirmation. That is not reasonable access since I know for a fact he does not put one carcass of cattle on any of that lease land.

The "family and cronies" part I'll take issue with. My family and other people I know "cronies" in your words, are taxpayers of Alberta. If they are out hunting my lease first, the owners are already out there, and maybe you should be denied access on safety grounds for example. Just because you as an entitled taxpayer are denied access it doesn't mean other entitled taxpayers haven't beat you to it. Like I said before as an outsider you don't have a clue what actually goes on around a farm/ranch just by driving by it.

If the guy doesn't have livestock on his lease report him. Just be aware there are legitimate reasons not to have livestock on the lease for a period of time. For example THE LEASEHOLDER IS BEING A GOOD STEWARD RESTING THE GRASS ALLOWING RECOVERY RATHER THAN DESTRUCTION OF THE RESOURCE. But hey, as long as you know what's best, lease holders should listen to you.

[qmurphy]

Fantastic last post bobalong. Honest, accurate, and well said.

[lannie]

Originally Posted by bignixs

Again this is not about reasonable restrictions on access, safety restrictions on access etc. This is about a small % of lease holders blatantly not playing by the rules. There is no way that a lease holder can justify running a outfitter business off of lease land. Pretty simple it is not the Lease Holders land and the government has spelt out the access of the general public rules pretty clear both parties need to follow it.

As for ****ing of land owners, I would not be to worried about it because if their trying to stop you from getting on a lease that the government says you have a right to be on then they were never ever going to let you on their private land.

You are missing a couple of real life points. There are rules the government has set out for the leases just like the rules for speeding on public roads. Don't irritate them because it will back fire on you. Many with leases who have read this thread will be a bit harder to deal with next season.


"As for this argument of landowners punishing hunters because they are forced to comply with the law and allow Albertans on to their land that's a joke. These landowners who are trying to restrict access to public land were never ever going to allow access to their private land. So they can unleash all the hell they want they still will have to follow the law and let guys on the lease."
You are mistaken.

[sjemac]

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

The "family and cronies" part I'll take issue with. My family and other people I know "cronies" in your words, are taxpayers of Alberta. If they are out hunting my lease first, the owners are already out there, and maybe you should be denied access on safety grounds for example. Just because you as an entitled taxpayer are denied access it doesn't mean other entitled taxpayers haven't beat you to it. Like I said before as an outsider you don't have a clue what actually goes on around a farm/ranch just by driving by it.

If the guy doesn't have livestock on his lease report him. Just be aware there are legitimate reasons not to have livestock on the lease for a period of time. For example THE LEASEHOLDER IS BEING A GOOD STEWARD RESTING THE GRASS ALLOWING RECOVERY RATHER THAN DESTRUCTION OF THE RESOURCE. But hey, as long as you know what's best, lease holders should listen to you.

LOL. He's been "resting" his leases for over a decade now -- except for all the areas where his clients are Argoed, 4x4'd and quadded all across the place.

Anyhow if the lease in question has a numbers of hunters restriction placed on it in the ministerial approved conditions then fine. Most do not however and the leaseholder is then not allowed to use "there are already hunters on it" as an excuse to deny access. If numbers of hunter restrictions are in place then the leaseholder should be held responsible for proving that hunters are actually using the land on the days that he has denied access for that reason.

[Silverado04]

Originally Posted by sjemac

Anyhow if the lease in question has a numbers of hunters restriction placed on it in the ministerial approved conditions then fine. Most do not however and the leaseholder is then not allowed to use "there are already hunters on it" as an excuse to deny access. If numbers of hunter restrictions are in place then the leaseholder should be held responsible for proving that hunters are actually using the land on the days that he has denied access for that reason.

Absolutely.

The law is clear. The conditions on each individual disposition are clear.

The person seeking access has to abide by those conditions, and I'd hazard that the very large majority of people "using respect and contacting first" are following the rules.

So to is the leaseholder required to provide reasonable access under those same conditions.

The people contacting are not the issue, and leaseholders should not and 'cannot' be denying access on things outside those conditions. If someone is cutting fences, the lease-holder needs to follow the same avenues if someone was trespassing and cutting fences on their deeded property. Criminal occurrences do not grant the leaseholder authority to change the disposition conditions on a whim.

If we all play by the rules, the system will work as intended. I'm not defending nor ignoring vanadalism, and I'm not sure what the best solution for that is, but restricting access to other responsible people is not the answer, and certainly not a lawful answer under the conditions of the lease.

[hillbillyreefer]

Originally Posted by sjemac

LOL. He's been "resting" his leases for over a decade now -- except for all the areas where his clients are Argoed, 4x4'd and quadded all across the place.

Anyhow if the lease in question has a numbers of hunters restriction placed on it in the ministerial approved conditions then fine. Most do not however and the leaseholder is then not allowed to use "there are already hunters on it" as an excuse to deny access. If numbers of hunter restrictions are in place then the leaseholder should be held responsible for proving that hunters are actually using the land on the days that he has denied access for that reason.

Like I said talk to the powers that be about having the lease revoked. If your allegations can be proven he should lose his lease. After over 10 years of documenting what happens on that lease daily you should have a pretty good case. Or maybe you don't have any proof and are just slinging crap because you have been denied. I suspect the latter, uppity go getters like you would have that lease agreement terminated quicker than in "over a decade".

After all the etiquette threads on here about hunters spoiling other hunters days you want to go in and disturb people who got up earlier than you? They got there first deal with it. As for keeping lists of those who accessed and when, in order to prove to you that access is allowed, why would that make you happy? When you get the list you'll deny it's validity as not enough proof, claiming anyone could make that up. If pictures are taken of the hunters on the lease you'll scream photoshopped. I know let's have a lease access registry, we could create a whole new beauracracy!

With all the hoops you require landowners to jump through is it any wonder they say no to hunting access. It's just easier than dealing with all the problems. When the settlement officer finally calls the leaseholder only has one person to deal with to sort things out.

[igorot]

Originally Posted by bobalong

On the other hand you have people coming into an area, often knowing no one, contributing nothing, except possibly some gas, and a meal at the local restaurant. They basically have no link to the community at all, they have come to give nothing, they have only come to TAKE.

= Dont know how describe this statement except greed.

[Cupped N Committed]

This horse was dead by page 3 boys n girls. Now it just the same whining and moaning from both sides. We've heard the arguments. Leave it be and move on..... Like a bunch of jr high girls on here!

If you don't like the situation. MOVE ON!!!! There is plenty of land in this province to hunt! This is all so petty it makes a guy sick!

Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things!

[sjemac]

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

Like I said talk to the powers that be about having the lease revoked. If your allegations can be proven he should lose his lease. After over 10 years of documenting what happens on that lease daily you should have a pretty good case. Or maybe you don't have any proof and are just slinging crap because you have been denied. I suspect the latter, uppity go getters like you would have that lease agreement terminated quicker than in "over a decade".

After all the etiquette threads on here about hunters spoiling other hunters days you want to go in and disturb people who got up earlier than you? They got there first deal with it. As for keeping lists of those who accessed and when, in order to prove to you that access is allowed, why would that make you happy? When you get the list you'll deny it's validity as not enough proof, claiming anyone could make that up. If pictures are taken of the hunters on the lease you'll scream photoshopped. I know let's have a lease access registry, we could create a whole new beauracracy!

With all the hoops you require landowners to jump through is it any wonder they say no to hunting access. It's just easier than dealing with all the problems. When the settlement officer finally calls the leaseholder only has one person to deal with to sort things out.

And you talk about me making assumptions. I know the guy in question personally. I know his family. I know his friends. His own son told me the info I have relayed. I have no interest in hunting his place and have never asked. I don't have enough time to hunt the areas I do own or have access to now.

I have no interest in reporting him to anyone. I like the guy. I am simply using his experience to show how some leaseholders are artificially creating obstacles to deny access or discourage people from asking in the first place.

Etiquette is up to the individuals to exercise. Leaseholders are not the arbitrators of etiquette. A sign-in station at the entrance to the lease is not a huge hoop. I've hunted many areas that have them.

And landowners should not have to jump through any hoops regarding access to their land. LEASEHOLDERS however have to share and jumping through hoops is one of the prices of getting a government subsidy to utilize public land for commercial purposes.

I for one would be simply asking the government to not renew grazing leases as they expire and allowing the areas to revert truly to the crown for all Albertans to enjoy. I would take a hundred years or so but the amount of crown land that would open up would be immense. Then there would only be landowners and they could control their property any way they wished.

[hillbillyreefer]

Originally Posted by sjemac

And you talk about me making assumptions. I know the guy in question personally. I know his family. I know his friends. His own son told me the info I have relayed. I have no interest in hunting his place and have never asked. I don't have enough time to hunt the areas I do own or have access to now.

I have no interest in reporting him to anyone. I like the guy. I am simply using his experience to show how some leaseholders are artificially creating obstacles to deny access or discourage people from asking in the first place.

Etiquette is up to the individuals to exercise. Leaseholders are not the arbitrators of etiquette. A sign-in station at the entrance to the lease is not a huge hoop. I've hunted many areas that have them.

And landowners should not have to jump through any hoops regarding access to their land. LEASEHOLDERS however have to share and jumping through hoops is one of the prices of getting a government subsidy to utilize public land for commercial purposes.

I for one would be simply asking the government to not renew grazing leases as they expire and allowing the areas to revert truly to the crown for all Albertans to enjoy. I would take a hundred years or so but the amount of crown land that would open up would be immense. Then there would only be landowners and they could control their property any way they wished.

So you condone this leaseholders activities through your inaction.

Honestly how long do you think leaselands would stay pristine with no oversight?

Taking 5million acres out of production can't be a bad thing. It will drive up land prices, and ultimately food costs. Landowners making a profit is a good thing.

[sjemac]

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

So you condone this leaseholders activities through your inaction.

No. I'm just apathetic. It doesn't impact me personally so why would I be the one to die on the hill? There are other issue that concern me more right now. My land borders a lease held by a neighbor. I'd love to see that in private hands because right now the hunters who access it are constantly leaving it to trespass on my land because they can stay hidden in the woods. If it was private, access would be denied and I'd likely have less problems. However, it is crown land and access is granted and there is nothing I can or should be able to do about it.

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

Honestly how long do you think leaselands would stay pristine with no oversight?

There are many leases that state "no contact required" and they are in just as good shape as all the others sooo........?

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

Taking 5million acres out of production can't be a bad thing. It will drive up land prices, and ultimately food costs. Landowners making a profit is a good thing.

See. Win-win. An extra 5 million acres of hunting access would also likely decrease the crap show that happens on private land in many areas.

[Sneeze]

Does anybody know about the financing requirements or other issues that lenders have regarding loaning money towards the purchase of a crown lease?


I am curious to discover what allows such inflated prices of this land considering the annual rate of return most are going to receive on the land from grazing.

Is the criteria similar to deeded farm land where 50 year mortgage's are offered?

I am speculating here - but I would imagine that if basically the same rules apply - ranchers are taking advantage of low interest rates and extended term mortgage's to ensure a yearly return slightly higher than debt servicing cost, and hoping for some capital appreciation on the lease value before they loose the ability to write off interest expenses (having the land paid for).

So instead of sweeping legislation that would never fly (allowing all crown lease to go native)... Hit the problem at the source by changing the financing requirements on lease land. Expect 80% down on the crown lease.

I feel that would eliminate much of the abuse that goes on where people are purchasing crown leases for both the purposes of hunting and income from livestock - and it would bring these inflated prices down.

You can't deny that when you spend $800 000 on something - some ownership rights are to be expected.

Or maybe I am completely wrong as I know nothing about the financing requirements on purchasing crown leases.

[hillbillyreefer]

Originally Posted by Sneeze

Does anybody know about the financing requirements or other issues that lenders have regarding loaning money towards the purchase of a crown lease?


I am curious to discover what allows such inflated prices of this land considering the annual rate of return most are going to receive on the land from grazing.

Is the criteria similar to deeded farm land where 50 year mortgage's are offered?

I am speculating here - but I would imagine that if basically the same rules apply - ranchers are taking advantage of low interest rates and extended term mortgage's to ensure a yearly return slightly higher than debt servicing cost, and hoping for some capital appreciation on the lease value before they loose the ability to write off interest expenses (having the land paid for).

So instead of sweeping legislation that would never fly (allowing all crown lease to go native)... Hit the problem at the source by changing the financing requirements on lease land. Expect 80% down on the crown lease.

I feel that would eliminate much of the abuse that goes on where people are purchasing crown leases for both the purposes of hunting and income from livestock - and it would bring these inflated prices down.

You can't deny that when you spend $800 000 on something - some ownership rights are to be expected.

Or maybe I am completely wrong as I know nothing about the financing requirements on purchasing crown leases.

You couldn't finance leaseland when I bought my place. Try looking it up at afsc or FCC.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by Sneeze

You can't deny that when you spend $800 000 on something - some ownership rights are to be expected.
.

Is that what the crown gets, or is that what the third guy down the chain to sell the lease got?

[OpenRange]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

Is that what the crown gets, or is that what the third guy down the chain to sell the lease got?

The guy selling the lease land gets that money from the sale. When I bought those 4 sections I paid him the $850,000. I then had to pay the government per acre for the "transfer" fee. I think it was about $25,000 total. Then each year I have to pay the annual rental fee. As to wondering if you can finance lease land, you absolutely can do that. I'm not sure how it works with the grazing permit/ reserves found up north, lots of that land sells quite a bit cheaper because its always pretty tough country and the grazing returns aren't enough to justify it. In my area deeded land sells for about $550-650 per acre for just plain old grazing land, lease runs in the $300-400 range. Some areas are more and some are less.

[lannie]

Originally Posted by OpenRange

The guy selling the lease land gets that money from the sale. When I bought those 4 sections I paid him the $850,000. I then had to pay the government per acre for the "transfer" fee. I think it was about $25,000 total. Then each year I have to pay the annual rental fee. As to wondering if you can finance lease land, you absolutely can do that. I'm not sure how it works with the grazing permit/ reserves found up north, lots of that land sells quite a bit cheaper because its always pretty tough country and the grazing returns aren't enough to justify it. In my area deeded land sells for about $550-650 per acre for just plain old grazing land, lease runs in the $300-400 range. Some areas are more and some are less.

And you pay property taxes on the leased land every year.

[OpenRange]

Originally Posted by lannie

And you pay property taxes on the leased land every year.

I forgot about that one. Also, I never thought about it till you said it, if I'm just renting the land from the government and it's not mine and other than grazing it I have no rights like everyone on here is saying, then why do I pay property taxes? Renter's in the city don't pay it directly I believe, though it is rolled into the rental cost, and they definitely don't own anything. Just a thought!

[sjemac]

Originally Posted by OpenRange

I forgot about that one. Also, I never thought about it till you said it, if I'm just renting the land from the government and it's not mine and other than grazing it I have no rights like everyone on here is saying, then why do I pay property taxes? Renter's in the city don't pay it directly I believe, though it is rolled into the rental cost, and they definitely don't own anything. Just a thought!

As you said, renters pay property taxes too -- just through a different mechanism.