AGLA Meeting Feb 27.

[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.

[ASRG]

Okay, but do you realize by arbitrarily changing the terms of the contract, you are fundamentally confiscating real property?
For example: gaucho paid X amount of dollars with a clear understanding of what he was getting? Now you change the deal....and it no longer works for him. Who will pay him the price he paid....now that it is no longer viable? You have expropriated his property. Is that fair? Is that the kind of country we want to live in.......where the government can, defacto, steal your property?
You may not realize this but you own your own land (fee simple)....on the good will of the Crown/government? In reality they can take it from you whenever they want to....and they don't have to pay you a cent! Do we really want to go down that road?

[Horse]

This is not real property it is a lease and at the ministers discretion it can be cancled changed or revoked in the greater interest of the public, rates can change,
I would think if the lease holders were realy interested in thier intrest in grass they should try to align them selves with the real world.
Did you ever buy something expecting to make a dollar only to see that dream go south thats life.
I dont feel that losing the oil revenue should be an issue unless he bought expecting a handout from the oil biz, and if thats the case why hide behind a few cows.
Do as they say go out and buy oil rites or drill for oil but dont pretend you are a cattleman and compete with me in the market when the market dosent realy matter when your money is made before you even sell a calf.
I know of a lease in redcliff country where I was told if he turnrd 300 females out and not one came back he wouldnt lose any money.

[Horse]

Every time I get a chance to talk to a land man I ask about crown land and I was told many times of them delivering cheques in the 6 figure range and thats for sesemic , pipelines and everything not covered by anual payments, and most were as disgusted as me that the gov dosent put a stop to the gravey train.

[ASRG]

Actually a grazing lease is real property....ask any lawyer?
Did you buy your land expecting a "handout" from the oil biz? Why should you be compensated?
The oil company owns (leases) the minerals under your land. Under the Energy Resources Conservation Act they were given the right to access your property(including your grazing lease property), but with one very important provision.....they MUST have your permission before a license is issued.
If you and the oil company can't come to an agreement the Act provides a route for what is in fact an expropriation (right of entry).
Expropriation for the public interest is totally acceptable in a democratic society......but it MUST.....include a notice, a hearing and a judgement....which is why we have ERCB and Surface Rights Board hearings!
Expropriation must include fair compensation.....with the right to challenge that level of compensation....by both parties!
If you take away the grazing lease holders right to challenge expropriation and compensation......guess who is the next guy to lose his rights?
If you guessed you, the fee simple land owner, you would be correct! The grazing lease owner today....you tomorrow!
Good Lord man, don't you realize the government has already stolen a lot of your property already? Bill 2, the Carbon Capture & Storage Statutes Amendment Act, expropriated your real property, without compensation or access to due process of the law! Bill 2, the Responsible Energy Development Act, is going to take away your right due process and fair compensation!
And here you are lining up with the government and corporations trying to undermine property rights!
Farmers are often their own worse enemy.