Auditor General highlights Alberta grazing lease scam

[sjd]

Good article today about the ongoing grazing lease rip off that Bob Scammell has written so much about.

http://calgaryherald.com/news/politi...-lease-dollars

Outrageous that ranchers are pocketing dollars that belong to the public, and also a joke that lease rates haven't changed since 1994.

Looks like taxpayers are losing 30 million per year in unnecessary payments to ranchers that belong to the public. Rules that would have put us in line with SK and BC were never proclaimed. Good old PCs!

Funny that the Wild Rose rep doesn't care about fiscal responsibility or protecting taxpayers when its his constituents.

Nice to see it explained so clearly. I've got no problem with using public land for grazing, as long as rates are fair and these sorts of abuses are cleared up. The sense of entitlement of some ranchers about "their" lease (public) lands are a disgrace, and I'd expect some clean up here a nice side benefit of our new government.

[Talking moose]

[rugatika]

Hopefully the NDP will fix this.

[Big Grey Wolf]

It would be interesting to know how much of that cowboy welfare $$$ actually made it back to the local PC MLA for his re-election fund?? "Never bite the hand that feeds you"

[Okotokian]

THIS is one area where I could see the NDP government doing something useful (maybe) if we bring it to their attention. They aren't in the back pocket of ranchers. GRAZING RIGHTS are all a rancher should get from a grazing lease.

[LCCFisherman]

Grazing leases period in alberta are a joke.

[Redfrog]

"Funny that the Wild Rose rep doesn't care about fiscal responsibility or protecting taxpayers when its his constituents."

Is that what he said?

I guess if you wanted WR to change something, you should have voted for them. You see they have never been the government, and neither have the NDP, sooooo the PEOPLE must have wanted the PC to do what they do.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by Redfrog

"
I guess if you wanted WR to change something, you should have voted for them. You see they have never been the government, and neither have the NDP, sooooo the PEOPLE must have wanted the PC to do what they do.

What is the WR position on grazing leases, the resource revenue derived from them, and hunter access?

[dmcbride]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

THIS is one area where I could see the NDP government doing something useful (maybe) if we bring it to their attention. They aren't in the back pocket of ranchers. GRAZING RIGHTS are all a rancher should get from a grazing lease.

And get the one cow off the lease, come hunting season so the public can hunt their land.

[nicecurr]

Originally Posted by Redfrog

"Funny that the Wild Rose rep doesn't care about fiscal responsibility or protecting taxpayers when its his constituents."

Is that what he said?

I guess if you wanted WR to change something, you should have voted for them. You see they have never been the government, and neither have the NDP, sooooo the PEOPLE must have wanted the PC to do what they do.

What an absolutely brilliant observation! You are one sharp fellow!

[3blade]

"Drew Barnes, the Wild Rose MLA for Cypress-Medicine Hat and a rancher who receives surface rights payments from energy companies, cautioned against major changes to a lease system that has served rural communities well.

“These grazing associations and those with grazing revenue are contributing to air ambulance services and renovating schools, so a lot of the money stays local,” Barnes said.




One more reason I will NEVER vote wildrose. Exactly what I said from the start, PC rats that jumped ship. Suckling on the public teat, just like the leftards. I'll bet they contributed towards the schools and healthcare they hate.
Faces firmly planted in the trough. Financially responsible

Red, give it up. This one stinks worse than the red queen. They have been stealing public dollars (in several steps through the process) and public resources, and prohibiting access to public land. And contributing to a political regime that kept it all going. No excuses.

The wildrose have also endorsed the sale of public land, and paid hunting access. May as well as it seems to be current policy in their areas anyway, legal or not.

[Deer Hunter]

Yep.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by 3blade

"Drew Barnes, the Wild Rose MLA for Cypress-Medicine Hat and a rancher who receives surface rights payments from energy companies, cautioned against major changes to a lease system that has served rural communities well.

“These grazing associations and those with grazing revenue are contributing to air ambulance services and renovating schools, so a lot of the money stays local,” Barnes said.

.

SO schools and medical services in rural areas are paid for by passing the hat around to ranchers, and not by the government? Who knew??? LOL WR will never rock the boat with ranchers, NEVER.

[hal53]

Originally Posted by 3blade

"Drew Barnes, the Wild Rose MLA for Cypress-Medicine Hat and a rancher who receives surface rights payments from energy companies, cautioned against major changes to a lease system that has served rural communities well.

“These grazing associations and those with grazing revenue are contributing to air ambulance services and renovating schools, so a lot of the money stays local,” Barnes said.




One more reason I will NEVER vote wildrose. Exactly what I said from the start, PC rats that jumped ship. Suckling on the public teat, just like the leftards. I'll bet they contributed towards the schools and healthcare they hate.
Faces firmly planted in the trough. Financially responsible

Red, give it up. This one stinks worse than the red queen. They have been stealing public dollars (in several steps through the process) and public resources, and prohibiting access to public land. And contributing to a political regime that kept it all going. No excuses.

The wildrose have also endorsed the sale of public land, and paid hunting access. May as well as it seems to be current policy in their areas anyway, legal or not.

"in their areas" ?????

[Ranch11]

I hope the government gets rid of the program, and puts all leases up for auction/sale. Then they'll be privately owned and completely shut the door to public.
And if I'm selling our leases, guaranteed I'm pulling the fence.

[3blade]

Originally Posted by Ranch11

I hope the government gets rid of the program, and puts all leases up for auction/sale. Then they'll be privately owned and completely shut the door to public.
And if I'm selling our leases, guaranteed I'm pulling the fence.

No one wants you to lose access to the grass. Ranchers absolutely do act as stewards of the land and mostly good ones. But grass is all you pay for, so thats all you get. Not oil money, not private access, not political influence.

Under the current political regime it is more likely to be turned into nature preserves vs sold. We should all be careful what we wish for.

[Redfrog]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

What is the WR position on grazing leases, the resource revenue derived from them, and hunter access?

Google is your friend

I'll bet WR has a website. If you can't find it there, ask your mla. I wouldn't want to steer you wrong pardner.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by Redfrog

Google is your friend

I'll bet WR has a website. If you can't find it there, ask your mla. I wouldn't want to steer you wrong pardner.

Sounds like you voted for them without knowing their position on grazing leases.

[Redfrog]

"Red, give it up. This one stinks worse than the red queen. They have been stealing public dollars (in several steps through the process) and public resources, and prohibiting access to public land. And contributing to a political regime that kept it all going. No excuses.

The wildrose have also endorsed the sale of public land, and paid hunting access. May as well as it seems to be current policy in their areas anyway, legal or not."

What is you think I should give up?

If you think I agree with the lease system the way it is, then obviously you weren't reading my previous posts on this subject for the last several YEARS>

When did the Wildrose endorse paid hunting?
__________________

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by Ranch11

I hope the government gets rid of the program, and puts all leases up for auction/sale. Then they'll be privately owned and completely shut the door to public.
And if I'm selling our leases, guaranteed I'm pulling the fence.

And current lease owners would have first right of refusal. Can see a lot of access being lost if/when this happens.
Even more access than what is lost every time one of these threads pops up

[Redfrog]

Originally Posted by expmler

Sounds like you voted for them without knowing their position on grazing leases.

Sounds like you're still getting your exercise by jumping to conclusions.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by Redfrog

Sounds like you're still getting your exercise by jumping to conclusions.

Can you tell me their position?

[3blade]

Originally Posted by Redfrog

"Red, give it up. This one stinks worse than the red queen. They have been stealing public dollars (in several steps through the process) and public resources, and prohibiting access to public land. And contributing to a political regime that kept it all going. No excuses.

The wildrose have also endorsed the sale of public land, and paid hunting access. May as well as it seems to be current policy in their areas anyway, legal or not."

What is you think I should give up?

If you think I agree with the lease system the way it is, then obviously you weren't reading my previous posts on this subject for the last several YEARS>

When did the Wildrose endorse paid hunting?
__________________

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.

[Deer Hunter]

Originally Posted by MountainTi

And current lease owners would have first right of refusal. Can see a lot of access being lost if/when this happens.
Even more access than what is lost every time one of these threads pops up

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.

[3blade]

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.

Don't say it!!!! (Provincial parks) That is even worse than the current scam.

I want to rip the stupid political pendulum off the wall and beat politicians with it. Why is it so difficult to NOT f things up?!??!

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by Redfrog

Google is your friend

I'll bet WR has a website. If you can't find it there, ask your mla. I wouldn't want to steer you wrong pardner.

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.

[fish_e_o]

Originally Posted by 3blade

"Drew Barnes, the Wild Rose MLA for Cypress-Medicine Hat and a rancher who receives surface rights payments from energy companies, cautioned against major changes to a lease system that has served rural communities well.

“These grazing associations and those with grazing revenue are contributing to air ambulance services and renovating schools, so a lot of the money stays local,” Barnes said.




One more reason I will NEVER vote wildrose. Exactly what I said from the start, PC rats that jumped ship. Suckling on the public teat, just like the leftards. I'll bet they contributed towards the schools and healthcare they hate.
Faces firmly planted in the trough. Financially responsible

Red, give it up. This one stinks worse than the red queen. They have been stealing public dollars (in several steps through the process) and public resources, and prohibiting access to public land. And contributing to a political regime that kept it all going. No excuses.

ummm i receive surface rights payments from energy companies... am i a crook?


oh ya i own the land. i don't believe it says anywhere that his case is not the same as mine

[rem338win]

Lots more to these stories than is being given. I am actually shocked at the degree to which you all believe columnists and newspapers these days; they are spin doctors bent on selling. So similar to lobbyists and even your local used car salesman and yet we jump on board when it supports our notions and condemn them when they don't. Try being a little more objective.

Anyway, I am personally in favor of leased land reform. This said, the common perception that you have is incorrect and unfortunately will cause you to push for changes that aren't required and would be unfair on your part. The contribution that many of these people have made to the land is far greater than the gov stewardship of other public lands; especially in the case of protecting them from energy companies. In other cases the reason the amounts they are being paid so well by energy companies is due to their bargaining for those rates themselves.

Most of you are demonising a group of people and industry you have little knowledge of and need to do more foot work before grabbing a pitchfork and torch.

These lands should continue to be leased for the purposes they are with less grey and more black and white in the contracts. The public, therefor Gov, needs to take more responsibility for their share in the land and that has its downsides as well.

The "NDP will fix it" crowd on this is laughable. They're more likely to give it all to the FN than find an amicable solution that serves the public and a historic Alberta industry. Remember your head of ESRD is a Green Peace/Sierra Club hoodlum.......

[rem338win]

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.

You need to read that again. It's says the courts and government process needs to be used. That means it should be done right; no knee jerk executive decisions. If you don't like that then please stop voting and just walk up to the Leg and demand your favorite politician be given office by force. It's liken to that.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by rem338win

You need to read that again. It's says the courts and government process needs to be used. That means it should be done right; no knee jerk executive decisions. If you don't like that then please stop voting and just walk up to the Leg and demand your favorite politician be given office by force. It's liken to that.

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.

My point is that when it comes to grazing lease holders, the only comment and action from WR has been about protecting and enhancing their rights, not lessening them.