.......

[ImpartialObserver]

Originally Posted by Talking moose

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

So the ranchers can't access the land while there are cows on it?

[stringer]

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.

We're talking contracts sir.
Different story when the shoe is on the other foot

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by ImpartialObserver

So the ranchers can't access the land while there are cows on it?

Of course they can.

[stringer]

Originally Posted by ImpartialObserver

So the ranchers can't access the land while there are cows on it?

Yes he can and so can we unless it's stated otherwise

[jkav]

Originally Posted by ImpartialObserver

Those renters own every bit as much of that land as any other member of the public.

Agreed.

And not one bit more.

[ImpartialObserver]

Originally Posted by stringer

We're talking contracts sir.
Different story when the shoe is on the other foot

And each contract is different so why are you comparing a public land lease contract to a private land lease contract.

[ImpartialObserver]

Originally Posted by stringer

Yes he can and so can we unless it's stated otherwise

And it is stated otherwise between certain dates which the rancher paid for exclusive access.

[stringer]

Originally Posted by ImpartialObserver

And it is stated otherwise between certain dates which the rancher paid for exclusive access.

No such thing as exclusive access .
Nothing to do with dates.
Every lease is different
I know of leases were bow hunting is permitted even thou cattle are present.
If no cattle are present lease holder cannot refuse access period.
If he allows access to one person when cattle are present he has to allow access to everyone.

[ImpartialObserver]

Originally Posted by stringer

No such thing as exclusive access .
Nothing to do with dates.
Every lease is different
I know of leases were bow hunting is permitted even thou cattle are present.
If no cattle are present lease holder cannot refuse access period.
If he allows access to one person when cattle are present he has to allow access to everyone.

You're not making sense.

The rancher leases the land and runs cattle on the land between certain dates.

During the time the cattle are on the land he can refuse access.

During the time the cattle are on the land the rancher has exclusive access if he chooses not to grant access to anyone else.

[CaberTosser]

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.

Nope, hunters are taxpayers and are already part owners using foot access. The ranchers are there to make money and the Oil Co's are there to make money and both groups run heavy equipment on it. Hunters are there for recreation, not profit.

[ImpartialObserver]

Originally Posted by CaberTosser

Nope, hunters are taxpayers and are already part owners using foot access. The ranchers are there to make money and the Oil Co's are there to make money and both groups run heavy equipment on it. Hunters are there for recreation, not profit.

Ranchers are taxpayers too. They pay extra to use the land.

Ranchers are there to feed their cows. Hunters are their to feed their families.

Both benefit, only one pays.

[FCLightning]

Originally Posted by ImpartialObserver

Ranchers are taxpayers too. They pay extra to use the land.

Ranchers are there to feed their cows. Hunters are their to feed their families.

Both benefit, only one pays.

No, they both pay. One pays a fee to the gov't per AUM for the grass they (their cows) consume. The other pays a fee to the gov't per tag for the game animal they hope to consume. How is that a hard concept to understand?

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by ImpartialObserver

Ranchers are taxpayers too. They pay extra to use the land.

Ranchers are there to feed their cows. Hunters are their to feed their families.

Both benefit, only one pays.

Ranchers may hunt the land, hike, birdwatch
Hunters may hunt the land, hike, birdwatch
Equals......
If anyone wants to drop a hundred cows on the land they should pay...no?

[ImpartialObserver]

Originally Posted by Talking moose

Ranchers may hunt the land, hike, birdwatch
Hunters may hunt the land, hike, birdwatch
Equals......
If anyone wants to drop a hundred cows on the land they should pay...no?

Yes, and they do.

So tell me how that equals "welfare" for one group.

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by ImpartialObserver

Yes.

So tell me how that equals "welfare" for one group.

Oil and gas money going to ranchers. Free money(welfare). Refer to post 1.

[ImpartialObserver]

Originally Posted by Talking moose

Oil and gas money going to ranchers. Free money(welfare). Refer to post 1.

So take money from small business, make them less profitable. Leave them with less to spend in the economy. Hand it over to the government and have them decide how to spend it, maybe distribute it amongst the less successful.

Not such a bad idea all of a sudden.

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by ImpartialObserver

So take money from small business, make them less profitable. Leave them with less to spend in the economy. Hand it over to the government and have them decide how to spend it, maybe distribute it amongst the less successful.

Not such a bad idea all of a sudden.

They are not taking anything away from the rancher leasing the land because it was never his to begin with. Bad comparison

[ImpartialObserver]

Originally Posted by Talking moose

They are not taking anything away from the rancher leasing the land because it was never his to begin with. Bad comparison

Still makes him less profitable and redistributes wealth.

But that is always supported by those that think it will benefit them somehow.

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by ImpartialObserver

Still makes him less profitable and redistributes wealth.

But that is always supported by those that think it will benefit them somehow.

Maybe it will be redistributed into road repair. Who knows.

[ImpartialObserver]

Originally Posted by Talking moose

Maybe it will be redistributed into road repair. Who knows.

Maybe, so I guess you think that raising royalties on oil companies is a great idea too.

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by ImpartialObserver

Still makes him less profitable and redistributes wealth.

But that is always supported by those that think it will benefit them somehow.

Maybe it will be redistributed into road repair. Who knows. Perhaps the rancher uses that money to vacation in Cuba each year and none of that money will be put into the community or province. Who knows.

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by ImpartialObserver

Maybe, so I guess you think that raising royalties on oil companies is a great idea too.

Nope.

[stringer]

Originally Posted by ImpartialObserver

Still makes him less profitable and redistributes wealth.

But that is always supported by those that think it will benefit them somehow.

Last try.
If your in bussness and can't make a living at it you go out of business.
It's not the governments job to pick winners and losers by subsiding businesses.
Why should ranching be any different.

[ImpartialObserver]

Originally Posted by Talking moose

Nope.

Why not, there is no guarantee that oil companies will not use their profits for holidays in Cuba and huge CEO salaries or that they will contribute to the community either.

[ImpartialObserver]

Originally Posted by stringer

Last try.
If your in bussness and can't make a living at it you go out of business.
It's not the governments job to pick winners and losers by subsiding businesses.
Why should ranching be any different.

Great, then apply that to oil companies too, and raise royalty rates. If they can't make it too bad.

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by ImpartialObserver

Why not, there is no guarantee that oil companies will not use their profits for holidays in Cuba and huge CEO salaries or that they will contribute to the community either.

You must support higher royalties taxes for oil company's too.

[Talking moose]

I like to see oil company's making lots of money. Pretty good chance that money will be put back by starting up more projects.

[Talking moose]

C'ya.

[ImpartialObserver]

Originally Posted by Talking moose

You must support higher royalties taxes for oil company's too.

Nope, not for oil companies or ranchers.

[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.