Farm FAMILY income

[rkaiser]

This may be somewhat off topic but what about putting people in animal's way as in the Three Sister's development in Canmore. There are wildlife corridors all around the place and people out walking, biking etc. Already there has been life lost and injuries due to mauling by bears....horse just wondering if you feel that should be expected when you put people in harms way or should the wildlife corridors be removed so as not to encourage the wildlife into the populated areas ???

As for cattleproducers being on welfare, I do not agree. Much of the grazing lands in this area were allocated prior to any resource extraction taking place. Ranchers needed the extra grass as this was an area where the agricultural industry was developing. In many cases cattle producers would have been out of business if it wasn't for the opportunity to lease grazing lands. I think there needs to be a more realistic approach to the revenue from the leases on these lands but I do not see the users as being welfare cowboys !!!

Many of the folks I know that have had grazing leases for a long time have put hundreds of thousands of dollars of improvements on those lands, clearing, seeding, fencing, building portable cattle handling systems etc.

[FRENCHMAN]

Frenchman..I live in the country for the peace and tranquility it sure isnt for the income but that was my choice I dont fight nature I try to get along with her I expect to have beavers on the creek because I dont want to remove the trees and I like to see Moose Bear Cpoyotes And mabey the odd wolf as they tend to follow the ungulate population and I live in afairly remote area.

Horse thats fine do your own thing but don,t screwup my ranching operation ..by adding predators.

frenchman...As for cattlemen on welfare what do you call it when the rent is app 8% of going rate and in 3/4 of the leases there is oil revenue far in excess of costs then there is the brushing and fencing and water ascistance that goes with the lease.

Horse On my lease there is no oil and I paid for every development including cat work, wells , fences

frenchman..I think if you put yoir animals in harms way you have to expect some loss.


Horse ... fine .. just keep them predators at your place.

[cowman]

The fact is leased land belongs to the Alberta government and in the big picture costs the Albertan taxpayer a lot of money?
Not sure how it is today but in 2000 the taxpayer was losing $37 million per year( I assume it is a lot more by now). If there wasn't one cow on crown land, nor one cent being paid in grazing fees...the taxpayers would be $37 million richer...just a fact.
So in fact the Alberta taxpayer was subsidizing the crown lease holder to the tune of $37 million dollars. On private leases the surface oil lease money almost exclusively goes to the landowner...but not on crown land! This is a basic mistake the Alberta government made a long time ago. They allowed the leasee to assume an ownership role when that clearly wasn't appropriate? The Alberta government tried to rectify this but got caught in such a strong protest from the leasees that Klein backed down. Sooner or later it will have to be dealt with.

[Horse]

Emerald what is your solution get red of the wildlife . If I chose to go out in the codl then cold fingers can be expected I dont expect some one to warm them for me . WE have been creeping into wildlife habatat at an alarming rate and dont want any inconvinces like those that want hotels alowed in the mountians because they dont want to [rough it] but they want the experence of the mountians.
frenchman if you paid for improvements on your lease you are one of very few as most was paid by gov or you paid and are not paying any rent until you recoup your costs.
What do you call it if you are getting something for nothing but welfare? $1.39 per animal unit mounth plus the right to sell said lease. If we all had a deal as good as that just think we wouldnt have to come up with $100s of thousands of dollars and all our rent is wrote off yearly over the last 30 yr I have paid over 150,000 in intrest while those with leases have not along with that they have enjoyed probably 100s of millions in resourse revenue.
Tell me again how tough it is?

[Horse]

cowman, oil companies pay a lot less to drill on crown land vs land in the white zone. That is one mistake the government has made along with the mistake of allowing leasees to be compensated for anything more than adverse effect and fence damage etc. Horse, I agree that we have encroached on the wildlife but it doesn't make much sense to me to have wildlife corridors along side of walking and biking trails, it should be one or the other.
Cattle producers in this area cleared their leases, fenced them, put in their own watering systems ( eg: dugouts and windmill or solar pumps).

[nicolaas]

I figure it is a definite subsidy to have crown grazing leases. boo hoo if you have to put up/maintain a fence. I pay 90K per quarter and have to put up a fence and look after my watering system. It is ridiculous that the leesee can "sell" the crown land and also gain oil revenue, at the same time pay a fraction of the cost that they would if utilizing a custom grazer. Community pastures are also subsidized. Sort of reminds me of the Liberal day care program... everyone pay for spaces for the urban kids, while small town canada has to look after thier own.

[nicolaas]

I agree 100% that grazing leases should not be sold by the leaseholder. I feel that leaseholders should be compensated for their improvements and when they no longer want to retain the lease or when their lease runs out the land should be offered again for lease by public tender. I personally know producers whose farms are not overly state of the art but they have over a million dollars in grazing leases they can sell.

[FRENCHMAN]

frenchman if you paid for improvements on your lease you are one of very few as most was paid by gov or you paid and are not paying any rent until you recoup your costs.

Horse.I pay the rent as well as the land taxes


frenchman..What do you call it if you are getting something for nothing but welfare? $1.39 per animal unit mounth plus the right to sell said lease.

Horse..Ours is supposed to go up to $7.A.U.M

frenchman..
If we all had a deal as good as that just think we wouldnt have to come up with $100s of thousands of dollars and all our rent is wrote off yearly over the last 30 yr I have paid over 150,000 in intrest while those with leases have not along with that they have enjoyed probably 100s of millions in resourse revenue.
Tell me again how tough it is?

Horse..I don,t get any resource revenue..And as far as interest ..I got you beat by a long shot.

Furthermore I fail; to see why I should get critized because we expanded using crown land, when no other was available.

[cowman]

The whole Crown lease thing is a tricky question. The courts have ruled that a crown lease is real property and can't be taken away or have the terms modified? It actually would be very unfair to the person who bought the lease in good faith to change the rules in mid game?
I think a reasonable way to change the system would be for the province to buy out the leases, at fair market value, and put them up for tender...strictly as grazing leases, not as owned property! Then any oil/gas revenue, foresty, mining, hunting income would go to the real owners...the people of Alberta.
This might be a costly way of transformation but would also be a fairer system...especially for the Alberta citizen? You would in effect be renting the grass and only the grass? I would suspect prices would drop off sharply for crown grazing leases.

[FRENCHMAN]

Just remember we ain,t all Alberta leaseholders

[Horse]

Frenchman do take that you are not in the sovern state of Ralph AKA alta
Cowman I may be wrong but on any leases I have seen all they pay is for grass as you need permision to cut trees or work land or water holes and you cant put up a permanent structure. And you have to run your own stock no renting it to others.
It states that the Minister can cancel or revoke or set new rates at his or her discresion so that leaves the fact that they dont change because they are getting campain contributions or [ heaven forbid KICK BACKS]

[cowman]

Horse: But if that was the case they wouldn't be getting the surface rights money? They wouldn't be trying to keep out the hunters post grazing season.
I understand a leasees desire to not have people on their "rented land" perhaps wrecking the fences etc., but if the hunting rights were leased out to a responsible guide he would be liable for any damages? And if the surface rights were leased out to the oil companies the same would apply? The leasse should be compensated for loss of use and damages only.
In the big picture it would be a very clear advantage to the Alberta taxpayer if there were no cows on the leases the way it is set up today? I suspect some guides would be willing to pay more than present grazing fees for exclusive hunting rights...and they wouldn't be expecting a check from the oil company!
Recently a BC conservationist group outbid all grazers for a lease and there won't be any cows there...is this a shade of things to come?

[Horse]

I dont know what is coming but the alta t****rs ass is lobying to get the same rights as the lease holders and if the grazers are colecting why not the t****rs afterall if an oil co distroys a stand of timber that reduces the squirl pop then the martin suffers hense the trapper has less income wherwas if an oil co takes out a stand of timber the leasee has more pasture and more income and recieves compensation? Now I dont recomend the trapper get any comp but the leasee shouldnt ither. I dont see why this is so hard for the politisions to figure out unless they are benifiting from this arangement.

[cowman]

I doubt the politicians are getting any benifit. But they sure get beat up if they try to solve the problem?
After Jack Horner and the boys whipped Ralph into shape on this one I doubt you could find any politician that wants to touch this one with a ten foot pole?
However the basic problem still is there? How does the cattleman, operating on private land, compete with what in reality are subsidized cows? If the lease holder is being paid to graze his animals, while the rancher on private land is actually paying to graze his...who will have the most profit? Who will be able to survive a downturn? Maybe the Crown leases should all be sold by tender and let private enterprize sort out the winners and losers?
In addition what about the interests of the Alberta taxpayer/citizen? Are their interests being taken into account? Should they be expected to subsidize one sector of an industry...often their own competitor? Is this fair?

[cowman]

The entire Provincial Land Use issue is currently under review and it will no doubt include Crown lands used for any purpose including grazing. The proposed date to get these new policies implemented is 2007 but it is going to take a lot of guts for the government to push it forward, particularly when there may be a new leader and an election in the offing by 2007.