AGLA Meeting Feb 27.

[ASRG]

Horse: I may be wrong but I don't think they get land cost or the entry fee on a new lease or pipeline right of way....just adverse effect and loss of use?
Like I said I might be wrong....I've never had anything to do with a grazing lease.

[ASRG]

Horse: further on this: If the government sets the price of the lease, and sets down the conditions for oil compensation/allowing hunting, receation, etc. how does that make the rancher evil or something? The government basically has all the power here? They can dictate whatever price/conditions they want....within the law?
A good example is the community pastures where they have raised the rates to a point where it is really borderline for the pasture patron (at least in Alberta). I had a neighbour who used to send 25 cows to the Cynthia pasture and when they raised the rates he found private pasture at $30/month was cheaper than the community pasture.

[Horse]

ASRG My point exactly ON grazing reserves that anyone can access as a patron or hunter the rates are at $25.50 in conner creek pasture anyway and get no oil revenue in fact the oil cos use roads paid for by the patrons, so why do grazing lease holders get oil revenue?
As I said before all these leases state AT THE MINISTERS DESCRETION. So realy the term is the only thing that could be argued a firm contract.
I think that the rates are basicly $1000 per oil lease but then there is pads with multi wells , I am not sure about entry fees but I do know that when a pipeline crossed one of my 1/4 the man with a grazing lease next to my land got more money for crossing his lease I dont know why but I did see his cheque.
As I have said before why are we subsidizing these leases I am sure they could pay thier own way and if not the gov would get far more out of the public land if it was just left to nature . Any idea how much is spent on hunting and recreation?

[SADIE]

I will comment here now "horse"

This could be the circumstance along the Keystone and The Keystone XL trancanada pipelines---Yes or No.

If it was along the Keystone or Keystone XL Trancanada lines you guys are basically tied to Confidentiality. I was the leader of the large group on the Enbridge Alberta Clipper Line that got that deal to Hardisty Alberta. On lease land on the Enbridge line the linear bonuses were not paid on lease land. We did not have enough landowners in that circumstance to get that component. The Alberta group basically took our deal and demanded it from Trancanada or "no signatures" The whole line was ready to force Transcanada to the second hearing at the National ENergy Board level --detailed route hearing. That would have delayed the construction of the Keystone (Now built and in operation) for years.

I practiced in that area as their vet for 20 years and know many of those guys. Even with "gag" clauses signed many have shown the deal. A few came and thanked us on the Enbridge line to set the bar so that deal was possible for others.

If that is not the line HORSE---than sorry I intruded on your thread.

[Horse]

Sadie thats not the line but thanks for the imput I am going to investigate some more all info is useful at some point.

[SADIE]

Is it a large diameter NEB regulated Line. If so CAEPLA has been involved in several of these on "linear Negotiations"

[ASRG]

Horse: if it was $1,000/lease up front I doubt the grazing leaseholder is getting anything but loss of use? Loss of use for pasture is $350/acre (in my area) and adverse effect is $2400 (3 acre site).
What I was trying to point out with the community pasture example was if grazing fees are raised too high, then no one will be buying the lease?
You imply the province would be better off getting the cows out completely?
If that happened who would manage the land? When you got a bunch of drunks up there every weekend roaring around on quads and mud trucks, lighting fires, chasing all the animals out of the country? Vandalizing the oil leases!
Those old ranchers might be the cheapest public land managers for the government!

[Happytrails]

Well put ASRG.

[Horse]

I alkways find it strange how all these terable things only hapen on lease land?It must suck to be on welfare>

[ASRG]

Consider what might happen when we get all those "welfare cows" off the land?
The costs of fire suppression alone might eat up all that "extra oil income" real fast!
Furthermore, studies show that elk really don't like ungrazed wolfy grass....they much prefer regrowth land that has been grazed. They will move in on the private land. Who will pay for that?
The system we have in place works well. If a few ranchers get a few extra bucks from an oil company (that is making millions) I have no problem with that. The absolute worst thing that could happen would be for the government to kick all the cows out and let some desk jockey in Edmonton manage the public lands!
You have a kind of funny outlook on "unfair welfare" cows. Is gaucho getting an unfair advantage because he gets a $1,000 for one well lease? Am I get an unfair advantage because I'm getting $4,000/lease for several well sites? Am I getting an unfair advantage because I get a monthly royalty check?
How much are my "welfare cows" subsidized?

[Horse]

This is like kicking a dead "horse" But one more time Fire supression we have what is called natural areas here and I havent seen any of them go up in smoke yet And there is no elk in most areas but we sure over run with moose now.
Conner creek grazing reserve has a wolf problem but it borders the athabasca river so I think one would expect such things.
A few extra bucks, I realy like that one over 40mill in anual fees to 3600 lease holders avg 11,000$ income, COST 970$ then there is the matter of the grass that suposibly is all they want and the oil money is just there right.
Desk jockey in ED ? who do you supose runs that money bin now, and the revenue dosent even cover the cost of paper work nowlit alone the gov flunkies
Advantage dont you see. Where is the lease holders at o sure some try to defend their welfare but most just quietly hope no one realy takes a look at the stupidity of this gov policy , as I have brought this up many times and you would be suprised at how many times I have been told I an nuts because even this gov cant be this stupid $4bill deficet shows how brite they are dont it
I rest my case if you can find where I have erroed let me know.

[Kathy]

I don't read horses comments, but to see my friend Randy supporting this neanderthal way of thinking is hurtful.

[rkaiser]

i guess I need to resond Kathy. I can not see the sense in NOT using the land to run cattle on but do wonder if some of the ranchers who run cattle on the leases that apy so much reveneue are not simply running cows to keep the gravy flowing. Have not seen anyone correct Horse on that one. is it all about the luck of the draw? Maybe. Or maybe there is a little lobbying going on, on the side to keep the oil rich lease holders happy. if you follow the money, you generally find the truth.

just seeing it from a rather uninformed angle.

[ASRG]

Okay Horse, in your ideal world of managing our public grazing lands, what changes would you like to see?
How would you improve the present situation?
Would you pay out the existing owners, when you expropriate the grazing leases or would you just stiff them?

[Horse]

ASRG Tough question but I would start by increasing the rates per AUM to somrthing more in line with commercial rates. Somewhere around $16 AUM . Thats in northen alta . They should not be assinable (sold) If they went back to the crown everyone would be able to bid on them, mabey a refund pro rated on improvements ( only those paid for by the lease holder) as it is most were given to leasees in the first place As for those that bought at more than value less oil to bad I had shares in nortel and I dont see anyone crying for my bad judjment.
A very large amount of trading was on paper or bought with revenue from oil on the leases already held like O H ranch for example.
It is something that should have never been let to happen but it does need to be addressed and corected if we are to see this so called level playing field.
Resourse revenue should go to the crown as all they are paying for is the grass right,
I wonder what percentage of leases have been sold and how many are original lessors. Tell me where you disaprove.