Auditor General highlights Alberta grazing lease scam

[rem338win]

Originally Posted by 3blade

Supporting the profit-at-any-cost PC pigs that rebranded themselves to avoid the slaughter .


When they endorsed "compensation for landowners for recreational access" not hard to read between those lines. That link convienently doesn't work anymore

It hase been nicely rewritten to "Provide more fairness and clarity to farmers and ranchers regarding their access to and use of land, water and other private property"

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.ne...pdf?1428617070

We all know dang well they didn't want to lose the support of passionate outdoorsmen so they changed the wording without changing their position on the matter. If they are elected we will not only be on the hook for cowboy welfare, we will be paying for hunting access. That might work for you, but it doesn't for most of us and is one more slip down the slope into "the Kings deer" situation.

Okay, for the sake of reasonable argument please stop the rhetoric and regarding the attachment to WR's rural stance, what has you scared?
I read it and it looks like they would repeal rights the PCs never should have stolen and no hint of paid hunting.

Rural albertans have played a huge part in making this province the great place it is. And you hate them because..::::::

[avb3]

It looks like the NDP government could implement changes today, no need to go to the legislature.

All they have to do is proclaim the law. And I'm willing to bet that is likely to happen as soon as they take a look at what the consequences would be. Since most consequences would occur in areas were they didn't even come in second in votes, do you really think they're going to hesitate much? Reform of the grazing lease system is a good thing, in most instances.

[rem338win]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

Why would the government need to go to court to bring in new lease rules once current leases expire? I own rental property. I don't need to go to court to raise the rent.

Because there are Acts into which much of this is entrenched, and their are rules on how you rent civilly too. It's the same reason an officer of the gov can't come and arbitrarily tell you how you have to rent.
Same here and that's all they are talking about. These agreements, due to their non-civil nature, have to be given guidelines and strict adherences, because individuals are using their elected or appointed powers to act on the behalf of public interests. Joe Supporter gets the good land for $5000 a year and Jim Regular gets the lesser for $10000. If I outright own the land that's one thing, but like you are all crying about, it's public land. Public and private interests need to be protected and regulated, with the government and individual held to a standard.
If that doesn't make sense to you then I give up.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by rem338win

Because there are Acts into which much of this is entrenched, and their are rules on how you rent civilly too. It's the same reason an officer of the gov can't come and arbitrarily tell you how you have to rent.
Same here and that's all they are talking about. These agreements, due to their non-civil nature, have to be given guidelines and strict adherences, because individuals are using their elected or appointed powers to act on the behalf of public interests. Joe Supporter gets the good land for $5000 a year and Jim Regular gets the lesser for $10000. If I outright own the land that's one thing, but like you are all crying about, it's public land. Public and private interests need to be protected and regulated, with the government and individual held to a standard.
If that doesn't make sense to you then I give up.

So as I indicated, WR wants to protect leaseholder's rights to that revenue, not take it away. That's my point.

[hillbillyreefer]

Good to see the rift between rural and city being expanded. Keep up the good work.

[mark-edmonton]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

No longer needed. Already got Drew Barne's take on it.

And from Rick Stankman's website:

"This second proposal calls for legislation that protects both real property and intangible property. Intangible property includes things like grazing leases, water licenses, oilsands leases, licenses and approvals for oil and gas wells, irrigation licenses, and formal authorizations that allow people to be in the dairy business, run a feedlot, harvest timber, or engage in a wide range of commercial activities. These types of commercial property-instruments are referred to as statutory consents.

Statutory consents are not real property in the sense that they are not physical, but on a daily basis they are nevertheless bought, sold, and traded. Many people make the biggest financial decisions of their lives based on the assumed trustworthiness of statutory consents.

Grassroots Alberta says it is absolutely unacceptable for politicians in Cabinet—not the government and not the courts, but the politicians in Cabinet—to have the power to show up at someone’s door and without cause or justification, point a finger and say. “Your oilsands lease, water license, grazing lease, or gravel extraction permit has just been cancelled"

WILDROSE is doing everything it can to protect rancher's "right" to royalties and other revenues derived from the lease of public land for "grazing". There's absolutely no doubt whose side WR is on. So if you are concerned with or repulsed by cowboy welfare, WR ain't your horse.

Nothing but more hot air from the crying PC supporters! Everything is everyone else's fault except the PC party! Their reign is over for the next 4 years!

[3blade]

Originally Posted by rem338win

Okay, for the sake of reasonable argument please stop the rhetoric and regarding the attachment to WR's rural stance, what has you scared?
I read it and it looks like they would repeal rights the PCs never should have stolen and no hint of paid hunting.

Rural albertans have played a huge part in making this province the great place it is. And you hate them because..::::::

I am a rural Albertan. And I have said repeatedly that most ranchers do a fantastic job of managing the land. But grazing leases are PUBLIC land. Therefore, the revenues (beside the grass that is paid for) should be public funds. Right of access should belong to the public. Wild game are a public resource (on all land). Placing a fence and a cow on a piece of land does not make it yours, anymore than peeing on a tree makes it mine for the season.

I do not subscribe to the left vs right, urban vs rural sheeple herding. I am an outdoorsman, hunting and fishing is my life. And any person or entity that disrupts hunting or fishing will be attacked with unending hatred. That includes your precious banana republic wild rose party. Who did in fact release a position in favor of paid hunting access, delete it, and refuse to address the issue currently.

So in short, I hate the PC/wildrose/whatever they call themselves next party, along with every other stripe of politician under this system. They got caught with thier hand in the public purse and now the usually defenders of all that is right on here are making excuses. Just like the left they rail against. Corrupt hypocrites.

And for what it's worth, those ranchers are acting legally in their own self interest, which is what anyone would do. No shame there. I take exception to the fact that our publicly funded government allowed it, and the wildrose utilize it to gain power, while telling us that hospitals are the problem.

And that is the last rant for the day. I think.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by 3blade

I am a rural Albertan. And I have said repeatedly that most ranchers do a fantastic job of managing the land. But grazing leases are PUBLIC land. Therefore, the revenues (beside the grass that is paid for) should be public funds. Right of access should belong to the public. Wild game are a public resource (on all land). Placing a fence and a cow on a piece of land does not make it yours, anymore than peeing on a tree makes it mine for the season.

I do not subscribe to the left vs right, urban vs rural sheeple herding. I am an outdoorsman, hunting and fishing is my life. And any person or entity that disrupts hunting or fishing will be attacked with unending hatred. That includes your precious banana republic wild rose party. Who did in fact release a position in favor of paid hunting access, delete it, and refuse to address the issue currently.

So in short, I hate the PC/wildrose/whatever they call themselves next party, along with every other stripe of politician under this system. They got caught with thier hand in the public purse and now the usually defenders of all that is right on here are making excuses. Just like the left they rail against. Corrupt hypocrites.

And for what it's worth, those ranchers are acting legally in their own self interest, which is what anyone would do. No shame there. I take exception to the fact that our publicly funded government allowed it, and the wildrose utilize it to gain power, while telling us that hospitals are the problem.

And that is the last rant for the day. I think.

But it was a good rant, which outlined the issue well, and also underlying that it is not just a rural vs urban issue.

[CBintheNorth]

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

Good to see the rift between rural and city being expanded. Keep up the good work.

Please do not turn this into 'city vs rural'
I live in the city and side with ranchers on this one.
Besides, I'm sure the 30 million they're missing out on would just be wasted by this government on something more stupid than we could conjure.

[dmcbride]

Curious why lease holders should get money from energy companies? I understand that there is a loss of grazing space, but shouldn't they just pay less
for the lease because of the loss of land?

I know that if I rent land from a landowner I do not get to collect the energy revenues. The landlord does. Aren't we the public the landlords of the grazing leases? Just trying to understand from a grazing lease holders perspective. Am I missing something?

[hal53]

Originally Posted by dmcbride

Curious why lease holders should get money from energy companies? I understand that there is a loss of grazing space, but shouldn't they just pay less
for the lease because of the loss of land?

I know that if I rent land from a landowner I do not get to collect the energy revenues. The landlord does. Aren't we the public the landlords of the grazing leases? Just trying to understand from a grazing lease holders perspective. Am I missing something?

^^^ this.....

[fish_e_o]

Originally Posted by dmcbride

Curious why lease holders should get money from energy companies? I understand that there is a loss of grazing space, but shouldn't they just pay less
for the lease because of the loss of land?

well it's like a sublease scenario. you could lease an entire building and then lease out smaller store fronts if you like. the cumulative may be greater than the whole amount that you're paying.

[3blade]

Originally Posted by dmcbride

Curious why lease holders should get money from energy companies? I understand that there is a loss of grazing space, but shouldn't they just pay less
for the lease because of the loss of land?

I know that if I rent land from a landowner I do not get to collect the energy revenues. The landlord does. Aren't we the public the landlords of the grazing leases? Just trying to understand from a grazing lease holders perspective. Am I missing something?

Yes, the part you missed is where some of the funds go back to the current right wing political party in the form of donations. Keeps everybody greased up.

[hal53]

Originally Posted by 3blade

Yes, the part you missed is where some of the funds go back to the current right wing political party in the form of donations. Keeps everybody greased up.

I agree, you'll never see the socialists accept money from any rural folk, now if the ranchers were unionized?..
BTW, I think the lands should be like Camp Wainwright or how they do it in Sask. , it is a community pasture, you need to graze your cattle there?, so much$ per head or cow/calf, from May until Oct. 31, they must be out by then, no access hassles etc.
Disclaimer: not completely certain Sask. is sill handling them like this, but it was years ago.. seemed to work fine

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by Deer Hunter

NDP govts are pro-public lands and pro-provincial parks so its unlikely that this will initiate a sale of public lands. And if it did, it would be to the highest bidder, not to a right of first refusal, or to someone who would deny access.

And if you believe that, I've got some ocean front property right here in Caroline for sale........highest bidder of course

Fair market value minus improvements..........first right of refusal

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

Good to see the rift between rural and city being expanded. Keep up the good work.

Must be some kinda record though, i don't recall seeing a thread on a bash the lease owners in a month or two.......ah well, just a little more access locked up as a result

[Deer Hunter]

Originally Posted by MountainTi

And if you believe that, I've got some ocean front property right here in Caroline for sale........highest bidder of course

Fair market value minus improvements..........first right of refusal

If the govt is so short of funds that it is selling off large tracts of public land, it will go to the highest bidder.
Nice scare tactic though.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by mark-edmonton

Nothing but more hot air from the crying PC supporters! Everything is everyone else's fault except the PC party! Their reign is over for the next 4 years!

oh no, I wholeheartedly agree the current system and problem is the PC's fault. We agree there. The new problem is that the WR wants to lock the current system in as much as possible, because they are the inheritors of all that rancher/cattleman political support. or as Stankman said, "pound the fence posts in deep", fence posts being required to keep people off land.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by MountainTi

Must be some kinda record though, i don't recall seeing a thread on a bash the lease owners in a month or two.......ah well, just a little more access locked up as a result

Careful what you ask for.

There may be no ability to restrict any access on lease land in the future. Own one section and lease 50, you may have an issue

[expmler]

Originally Posted by dmcbride

Curious why lease holders should get money from energy companies? I understand that there is a loss of grazing space, but shouldn't they just pay less
for the lease because of the loss of land?

I know that if I rent land from a landowner I do not get to collect the energy revenues. The landlord does. Aren't we the public the landlords of the grazing leases? Just trying to understand from a grazing lease holders perspective. Am I missing something?

Aren't lease holders part of the public?

Seems to me they are the only ones charged a fee for use of that public land.

[agentsmith]

Originally Posted by expmler

Aren't lease holders part of the public?

Seems to me they are the only ones charged a fee for use of that public land.

A lease means EXCLUSIVE use, that's what they're paying for.

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by Deer Hunter

If the govt is so short of funds that it is selling off large tracts of public land, it will go to the highest bidder.
Nice scare tactic though.

So what you are saying is the government will have to purchase lease plus the cost of improvements from the lease owner in order to resell it to the highest bidder? Gotcha. Sounds like it should work

This is too easy.......

[dmcbride]

Originally Posted by expmler

Aren't lease holders part of the public?

Seems to me they are the only ones charged a fee for use of that public land.

LOL. Aren't energy companies part of the public? Both lease holders and energy companies make money of the public land.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by agentsmith

A lease means EXCLUSIVE use, that's what they're paying for.

Nope.

It's a GRAZING lease. They get exclusive use of the grass.

[agentsmith]

Originally Posted by avb3

Nope.

It's a GRAZING lease. They get exclusive use of the grass.

In theory, but that's apparently not the way it's been in practice, what with them getting surface rights payments and such.

The whole setup is backwards from a normal lease agreement. Even having the leaseholder pay the municipal taxes is strange, that should be paid by the owner (Crown), and basically worked into the rent.

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by avb3

Nope.

It's a GRAZING lease. They get exclusive use of the grass.

So any damages to grass resulting in loss of use should be compensated for?

[avb3]

Originally Posted by MountainTi

So any damages to grass resulting in loss of use should be compensated for?

On a real loss basis, just reduce the cost of the lease. The land belongs to all of us, as do the other resources. Why should not all of us benefit from that as opposed to the leaseholder?

[leo]

Originally Posted by MountainTi

So what you are saying is the government will have to purchase lease plus the cost of improvements from the lease owner in order to resell it to the highest bidder? Gotcha. Sounds like it should work

This is too easy.......

Why would the government need to purchase the lease, they already own it. Fair market value for improvements is all that would be owed the lease holder. This should only happen hypothetically if the lease holder wants out of the contract, or at time of renewal.

[dmcbride]

Originally Posted by MountainTi

So any damages to grass resulting in loss of use should be compensated for?

Sure, why not. If one is leasing 100 acres for a $1000.00 and an energy company uses 10 acres, lower the lease to $900.00.

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by leo

Why would the government need to purchase the lease, they already own it. Fair market value for improvements is all that would be owed the lease holder. This should only happen hypothetically if the lease holder wants out of the contract, or at time of renewal.

Actually the purchaser owns the "lease". They don't give them away.

A lease is a contractual arrangement