.......

[MountainTi]

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.

The government received payment from the initial sale, and they also receive a substantial amount in transfer fees every time the lease changes hands. Should do a little investigating and learn the facts involved in lease lands

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by HoytCRX32

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?

I could drive you right to some if you would like. Actually give you the name of a public lands officer if you wish who can give you all the info. There is a fair amount of vacant crown in the peace country. Nobody wants it as it would cost too much to get cattle into it. Look into it, golden opportunity for ya

[HoytCRX32]

Originally Posted by MountainTi

I could drive you right to some if you would like. Actually give you the name of a public lands officer if you wish who can give you all the info. There is a fair amount of vacant crown in the peace country. Nobody wants it as it would cost too much to get cattle into it. Look into it, golden opportunity for ya

Fair enough...good discussion

[stringer]

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!

All tax write off's

[russ]

And any time someone utters the sentence "tax write off" as an excuse. It's clear they do not understand how taxes actually work.

[hal53]

Originally Posted by russ

And any time someone utters the sentence "tax write off" as an excuse. It's clear they do not understand how taxes actually work.

Exactly!!!!!

[stringer]

Originally Posted by russ

And any time someone utters the sentence "tax write off" as an excuse. It's clear they do not understand how taxes actually work.

Then please explain as you seem to be a tax expert.
Oh I get it now Russell must be what the R in H&R block stands for.
H yet be for Hal

[russ]

I can tell you this much it's very good to know the difference between an asset, an improvement to an asset and what an expense really is. Also, there is no such thing as a "100% write off". Urban flipping myth.

[stringer]

Originally Posted by russ

I can tell you this much it's very good to know the difference between an asset, an improvement to an asset and what an expense really is. Also, there is no such thing as a "100% write off". Urban flipping myth.

Never said their was.

[russ]

You implied it with your comment.

[stringer]

Originally Posted by russ

You implied it with your comment.

No you assumed that's what I was implying

[russ]

I'm out, it the level of the conversation is now "stop touching me".

[calvin]

Again this has reared its head. I suppose the other umpteen threads on this issue aren't enough. For those of you who do not know how these things go, here are my two cents. You do not own the land. you personally have absolutely any interest in it. It belongs to the province. They have people who look after it. Think about it like this. Your family owns a house in the city of Calgary or Edmonton. In that house is an 80 inch big screen TV that the owner of the house bought and paid for. The baseball playoffs are on and you show up at that house to watch the Jays on Thursday afternoon with a couple of your buddies and whatever else you bring. Now the house is rented and in this case the renter is paying the property taxes and all associated costs and repairs. So you and your buds show up to watch the game on that big beautiful full colour TV, Now the renter forgot something in his house that day and comes in and lo and behold here you are sitting there with your buddies enjoying the TV and all that fun associated with that. Do ya think he has a case to throw your arse out the door and maybe get a bit cranky about it? Now in your head you think its OK because your family owns the house. You just want to watch the TV that technically you do not own. you have no right to be there. its not yours. go away. how happy is your dad going to be when he gets a phone call from the current owner telling him that he just had to kick your sorry butt out of the property in which he rents and pays for in good faith? It is bad business for him to have this issue and i would think that he may have something to say to you when you get home. if this activity is that important to you, sit down and think about other ways you can maybe go watch the game on another big screen TV that won't cause any problems. This province is full of people who buy and rent things out. Is the system perfect, probably not. but those are da rules. you can't do that. you go sit in the box and think about what you did for two minutes.

[HoytCRX32]

Originally Posted by calvin

Again this has reared its head. I suppose the other umpteen threads on this issue aren't enough. For those of you who do not know how these things go, here are my two cents. You do not own the land. you personally have absolutely any interest in it. It belongs to the province. They have people who look after it. Think about it like this. Your family owns a house in the city of Calgary or Edmonton. In that house is an 80 inch big screen TV that the owner of the house bought and paid for. The baseball playoffs are on and you show up at that house to watch the Jays on Thursday afternoon with a couple of your buddies and whatever else you bring. Now the house is rented and in this case the renter is paying the property taxes and all associated costs and repairs. So you and your buds show up to watch the game on that big beautiful full colour TV, Now the renter forgot something in his house that day and comes in and lo and behold here you are sitting there with your buddies enjoying the TV and all that fun associated with that. Do ya think he has a case to throw your arse out the door and maybe get a bit cranky about it? Now in your head you think its OK because your family owns the house. You just want to watch the TV that technically you do not own. you have no right to be there. its not yours. go away. how happy is your dad going to be when he gets a phone call from the current owner telling him that he just had to kick your sorry butt out of the property in which he rents and pays for in good faith? It is bad business for him to have this issue and i would think that he may have something to say to you when you get home. if this activity is that important to you, sit down and think about other ways you can maybe go watch the game on another big screen TV that won't cause any problems. This province is full of people who buy and rent things out. Is the system perfect, probably not. but those are da rules. you can't do that. you go sit in the box and think about what you did for two minutes.

I was over with this thread but you are missing the point entirely...what if the owner of the house, when renting it to the renter, stipulated that the renter must allow others into the house at certain times if the ask. Also, your analogy is incorrect, as hunters do not want on to the property to utilize the lessees "assets" whatever they are (unless you consider the wildlife "your" assets). They simply want to hunt the land. To use your analogy, the visitors don't give a rat's *ss about the game or the TV (which in reality would be cattle and fencing). They simply want into the house at a certain time because the owner told them that if they followed the rules, the tenant is expected to allow them in. To be honest, they would be doing something totally different while you watched your precious TV.

If you are going to lecture people, try using relevant comparisons.

[Talking moose]

Lol.... Me and my buddies enjoying cattle. Gross.

[HoytCRX32]

Originally Posted by Talking moose

Lol.... Me and my buddies enjoying cattle. Gross.

[roy9525]

Originally Posted by MountainTi

The government received payment from the initial sale, and they also receive a substantial amount in transfer fees every time the lease changes hands. Should do a little investigating and learn the facts involved in lease lands

just seen a section of crown lease listed with a realtor for $960,000.00 I hope the government receives a very substantial amount in transfer fees if it sells. that is crazy for land we own.

[rem338win]

Let this crap die. Last time I checked it's called Crown Land. Which one of us humps happens to wear a crown? You and I own none of it.

[Bub]

Good bump, imo. At least for me as a new member here. This is probably the best discussion of the topic that I have seen on this board. I did read through the whole thing.
ImpartialObserver did not seem that impartial and was either a troll or hard in the head. Calvin with his TV example above is pretty much up there as well and the reason why many hunters do not feel easy about leaseholders.

What's interesting is that never do I see any justification for the collection of surface payments discussed in this topic. With, of course, the exception of fence line, wells, whatever.

On another note, I don't really care about access to any of the leased properties, personally; simply because I do not do any hunting on such properties. There are a few around. Many have not been utilized for years though. The fence line is next to nonexistent. There is no difference between the lease and the crown land next to it. Mind boggles why one should ask for permission to enter such a property.

Originally Posted by roy9525

just seen a section of crown lease listed with a realtor for $960,000.00 I hope the government receives a very substantial amount in transfer fees if it sells. that is crazy for land we own.

If true - lol. Do not be hating though. The guy must have built a fence and put quite a few wells in.

[Salavee]

Overview here ... http://www.albertalandinstitute.ca/p...ocuments/14872

[58thecat]

My land, you suck out of it or take I want my mooolaaaa!
Funny how a fella says no on one quarter section, company seeks approval on the next quarter section, buddy reaps the benefits of a pay heck every month and the other fella gets a knot in his face

[Diesel_wiesel]

Originally Posted by 7MM Mike

Since no one seems to want to offer their opinion, here is my take:
Leaseholders are using a public resource for personal gain, whether it be grazing cattle etc. To offer compensation to the leaseholder for surface disturbance in my opinion amounts to stealing from the public. The land is publicly owned - not privately owned.
These payments should be made to the Alberta gov't.
If anything is to be offered to a current or future leasee, it should be a lower lease rate to compensate for the lost grazing (or other) opportunity the surface disturbance has resulted in.
Obviously those that profit from "Cowboy Welfare" will wholeheartedly disagree, and why wouldn't you? this likely adds significantly to the bottom line in a tough business for some leaseholders. But - that doesn't make it right.

most right of ways (road access and leases ) create more grazing for cattle as they are usually seeded and the grass for grazing increases
as well they also create better access for the lease holders to get into their cattle and such
as per privately owned land in my opinion the queen and government should never have taken the mineral rights away from the people , but yes they should be compensated for the disruption of crops and crop damage and future crop loss, as most times after the top soil has been buried (deep ditching to store the top soil while the lease and access are active)for 20 years the top soil will never grow again, as it goes sour

[Deer Hunter]

Originally Posted by Salavee

Overview here ... http://www.albertalandinstitute.ca/p...ocuments/14872

Thanks for posting that

This table told the story

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by Deer Hunter

Thanks for posting that

This table told the story

Chachingggggg

[Bigrackdreams1973]

If they sell these tracts of lease land to the highest bidder as most of you feel should happen, who do you think is going to buy it? Probably some nature conservancy or special interest group and you think you have trouble getting on the land to hunt now, haha, good luck to anyone ever stepping foot on it ever again.

[Joe Black]

including present leaseholders, only friends and family of leaseholders, and paying guides.

im ok with that.

[Deer Hunter]

Think of this revenue leak every time you complain about the carbon tax....

[Scott h]

Originally Posted by Deer Hunter

Thanks for posting that

This table told the story

Wow !!!!! Those numbers are pretty impresive. You have to wonder why something hasn't been done about it after all these years.

[Scott h]

Originally Posted by Deer Hunter

Think of this revenue leak every time you complain about the carbon tax....

No kidding !

[Scott h]

Originally Posted by Bigrackdreams1973

If they sell these tracts of lease land to the highest bidder as most of you feel should happen, who do you think is going to buy it? Probably some nature conservancy or special interest group and you think you have trouble getting on the land to hunt now, haha, good luck to anyone ever stepping foot on it ever again.

No need to sell it. Let the lease holders continue to graze their cattle BUT not to collect oil/gas revenue OR restrict public from walking/hunting access.
That then would truly be "leasing for grazing purposes".
If the current lease holders don't want to re-lease then put it up for someone else to take over with the same rules.

Win-Win.... The lease holder gets grazing property to graze their cattle. The province gets revenue from grazer and oil/gas. The public gets millions of extra acres to hunt, picnic or berry pick. No more arguing over a publicly owned property.
This may upset a few thousand people but it would benefit a few million.