.......

[russ]

Lets be even more clear, a lease holder has explained to you that Gov't leases do not carry the same benefits as private leases do, yet you've glossed over this fact and focused on the bottom dollar cost and excluded the additional expenses that gov't leases entail. Why?

More aggravating is the reality that most of you are not even in a position to utilize the leases in question mostly due to geography and the cost of transporting livestock to literally the middle of nowhere. Or did you get confused and think that Bufflao and Jenner were actually close to civilization?

Best solution is to sell the land to the current leaseholders, move it all into the municipal tax rolls and be done with it.

[stringer]

Originally Posted by russ

Lets be even more clear, a lease holder has explained to you that Gov't leases do not carry the same benefits as private leases do, yet you've glossed over this fact and focused on the bottom dollar cost and excluded the additional expenses that gov't leases entail. Why?

More aggravating is the reality that most of you are not even in a position to utilize the leases in question mostly due to geography and the cost of transporting livestock to literally the middle of nowhere. Or did you get confused and think that Bufflao and Jenner were actually close to civilization?

Best solution is to sell the land to the current leaseholders, move it all into the municipal tax rolls and be done with it.

I didn't say they did , only that they should.
Who's talking about Jenner and Buffalo and what does we're I live have to do with it.
Best solution would be to terminate all leases were the lease holder does not allow public access for any reason.
And if ever public land is sold it should go to the highest bidder.

[HoytCRX32]

Originally Posted by stringer

I didn't say they did , only that they should.
Who's talking about Jenner and Buffalo and what does we're I live have to do with it.
Best solution would be to terminate all leases were the lease holder does not allow public access for any reason.
And if ever public land is sold it should go to the highest bidder.

I would be against any public land being sold but if it was, you are absolutely right...leaseholders, regardless of the tenure they had on the land, would be just one more bidder. Guaranteed, if it were sold to whoever, chances are public users, including hunters, would be kept off.

[Talking moose]

Bow down to grain farmers, bow down to cattle ranchers, they feed us. Who bows down to plumbers so the house don't stink while your eating thanksgiving turkey??

[Redfrog]

Well there are still some hunters who are ok with the present system and still some ranchers or farmers as well who think it's ok.

Obviously the whole thing needs an overhaul so that no one is happy.

The NDP will shine in this area.

[Johnnyg313]

This comes up year after year at hunting season time when someone isn't allowed to hunt on someone's lease land. Just go introduce yourself to their neighbour and maybe they'll let you hunt on their land. That's what I do sometimes and I own my own land and a few leases.

[ImpartialObserver]

Originally Posted by stringer

I didn't say they did , only that they should.
Who's talking about Jenner and Buffalo and what does we're I live have to do with it.
Best solution would be to terminate all leases were the lease holder does not allow public access for any reason.
And if ever public land is sold it should go to the highest bidder.

I thought your gripe was ranchers being paid by oil companies.

[russ]

No Stringers gripe along with everyone else's on here is land access. Since it boils down to this, once again the solution is simple. Sell the leaseland to the current landowners. A buck per lease. Why is the government even in the business of renting / leasing agricultural land anyway? Now we have this perversion that it's not up to the leaseholder to manage the land as he/she sees fit. Guy's like Stringer think ranchers should bring all of their cattle in on Sept 1 and keep them on the feed stacks until Dec 1 or whenever there's and open hunting season. Just so he can use the land to.

Sell the leases, it solves the perceived "problem".

[stringer]

Originally Posted by russ

No Stringers gripe along with everyone else's on here is land access. Since it boils down to this, once again the solution is simple. Sell the leaseland to the current landowners. A buck per lease. Why is the government even in the business of renting / leasing agricultural land anyway? Now we have this perversion that it's not up to the leaseholder to manage the land as he/she sees fit. Guy's like Stringer think ranchers should bring all of their cattle in on Sept 1 and keep them on the feed stacks until Dec 1 or whenever there's and open hunting season. Just so he can use the land to.

Sell the leases, it solves the perceived "problem".

Land access is a none issue as the lease holder can not restrict access if you don't believe me contact lands dept. and F&W and ask the right questions.
The issues here are lease rates that average around $2 /AUM for public leases and $40 / AUM for private leases.
All oil and gas revenue should go to the owners of the land not the lease holder.
That's cowboy welfare is it not.
And now you suggest giving them more welfare by selling them land that's worth in some cases over a thousand dollars per acre for a dollar per lease.

[CaberTosser]

Originally Posted by mich

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

A grazing lease is for grazing only, the landlord still retains all the other rights. If you rented a building to run an auction company and started selling off the rooftop HVAC equipment, the lighting and the windows then the landlord is gonna be rightfully ****ed.

[bwcweld]

Originally Posted by 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.

Hundreds of thousands in surface lease revenue? Off shallow gas wells? 400 wells? 400 quarters? Lol. Think that may be a bit far fetched. They get paid for damages and lost acreage on a lease they had to pay for as well as pay ALL the taxes leaving NO burden to other taxpayers. A lot of lease land in alberta was a part of the tax recovery program when homesteaders ditched their homesteads in the 30s. The government couldn't afford the tax burden so they created a lease program to alleviate themselves from it. The people who took advantage of this then had to pay yearly taxes on the land and manage the land under stringent guidelines. The lease holders stuck their neck out for land that they would never own. But if you feel entitled to it then go buy the lease on a bunch of it. Buy the cattle and equipment to operate all of it. And pay the taxes on all of it then you too can feel welcome to the surface revenue.

[bwcweld]

Anyone who doesn't feel the investor should reap the benefits of their investment is obviously socialist and are obviously the reason alberta is now run by NDP

[HoytCRX32]

Originally Posted by bwcweld

Anyone who doesn't feel the investor should reap the benefits of their investment is obviously socialist and are obviously the reason alberta is now run by NDP

Ridiculous argument...the "investor" as you say, reaps the benefit of the investment. AGREED, but in this case the investment is CATTLE, not leased public lands...If I make a million dollars from my business which is in a leased building (AKA owned by someone else), if I choose to sell my business, it will be valued based on what I earned while in the building, not from the leased building itself.

[HoytCRX32]

Originally Posted by russ

No Stringers gripe along with everyone else's on here is land access. Since it boils down to this, once again the solution is simple. Sell the leaseland to the current landowners. A buck per lease. Why is the government even in the business of renting / leasing agricultural land anyway? Now we have this perversion that it's not up to the leaseholder to manage the land as he/she sees fit. Guy's like Stringer think ranchers should bring all of their cattle in on Sept 1 and keep them on the feed stacks until Dec 1 or whenever there's and open hunting season. Just so he can use the land to.

Sell the leases, it solves the perceived "problem".

Sell the leases (land) for one dollar...clearly a joke right?

[russ]

Originally Posted by stringer

Land access is a none issue as the lease holder can not restrict access if you don't believe me contact lands dept. and F&W and ask the right questions.
The issues here are lease rates that average around $2 /AUM for public leases and $40 / AUM for private leases.
All oil and gas revenue should go to the owners of the land not the lease holder.
That's cowboy welfare is it not.
And now you suggest giving them more welfare by selling them land that's worth in some cases over a thousand dollars per acre for a dollar per lease.

Is this thread about access or is it about oil company payments to lease holders?

[stringer]

Originally Posted by russ

Is this thread about access or is it about oil company payments to lease holders?

Last time I checked it was about cowboy welfare.

[bwcweld]

Originally Posted by HoytCRX32

Ridiculous argument...the "investor" as you say, reaps the benefit of the investment. AGREED, but in this case the investment is CATTLE, not leased public lands...If I make a million dollars from my business which is in a leased building (AKA owned by someone else), if I choose to sell my business, it will be valued based on what I earned while in the building, not from the leased building itself.

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

[stringer]

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

And as you stated in your earlier post that it was initially give to them with the condition that they pay taxes.

[ImpartialObserver]

Originally Posted by HoytCRX32

Ridiculous argument...the "investor" as you say, reaps the benefit of the investment. AGREED, but in this case the investment is CATTLE, not leased public lands...If I make a million dollars from my business which is in a leased building (AKA owned by someone else), if I choose to sell my business, it will be valued based on what I earned while in the building, not from the leased building itself.

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

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by ImpartialObserver

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

Technically the owner. In reality the renter

[FCLightning]

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

Whatever someone thought they should make as a donation to their neighbor for a lease holding that cost him nothing is immaterial to this discussion. If you want some of the 1200/acre back, ask the fellow you gave it to for no real reason.

[ImpartialObserver]

Originally Posted by Talking moose

Technically the owner. In reality the renter

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

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by ImpartialObserver

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

Don't know. Highly doubt it.

[stringer]

Originally Posted by ImpartialObserver

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

The lease holder would be paying the property tax to the county as it was part of the initial deal to lease the land.
But nowhere in the deal was it stated the he could sell the rights to the lease for profit.

[ImpartialObserver]

Originally Posted by stringer

The lease holder would be paying the property tax to the county as it was part of the initial deal to lease the land.
But nowhere in the deal was it stated the he could sell the rights to the lease for profit.

Is there anywhere in the deal that prohibits him from selling the rights for profit?

[CaberTosser]

Originally Posted by bwcweld

Anyone who doesn't feel the investor should reap the benefits of their investment is obviously socialist and are obviously the reason alberta is now run by NDP

Yep, as a taxpayer I am a vested owner and I feel that I should reap the maximum amount out of my tiny fractional ownership. Any dollars we taxpayers can reap from other parties who wish to pay for access should be maximized. Thanks for bringing this up, we shouldn't let those renters with their excessively low lease rates try to screw us owners out of our rightful percentage!!

[stringer]

Originally Posted by ImpartialObserver

Is there anywhere in the deal that prohibits him from selling the rights for profit?

That's the problem.
If I leased out your private land and you left ithat out of the contract would that give me a legal right to sell the lease to your property to someone else ?

[ImpartialObserver]

Originally Posted by stringer

That's the problem.
If I leased out your private land and you left ithat out of the contract would that give me a legal right to sell the lease to your property to someone else ?

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.

[ImpartialObserver]

Originally Posted by CaberTosser

Yep, as a taxpayer I am a vested owner and I feel that I should reap the maximum amount out of my tiny fractional ownership. Any dollars we taxpayers can reap from other parties who wish to pay for access should be maximized. Thanks for bringing this up, we shouldn't let those renters with their excessively low lease rates try to screw us owners out of our rightful percentage!!

Sounds like you are in favor of paid access for hunters. Those renters own every bit as much of that land as any other member of the public. The difference is they are the only ones that pay for access.

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by ImpartialObserver

Sounds like you are in favor of paid access for hunters. Those renters own every bit as much of that land as any other member of the public. The difference is they are the only ones that pay for access.

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