Farm FAMILY income

[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.