Big Boquillas Ranch Threat or Leverage or Both!

[johnnie blaze]

But of course, the owners would need to be willing

[GreyGhost85]

RMEF and BHA (backcountry hunters and anglers) need to become aware of this situation if they aren't already

[.270]

Checkerboard land was invented to get the railroad to come here. The gov't deeded every other section, for so many miles, on each side of the tracks, to the RR co's so they could sell it go finance the tracks. Their is also a fee attached to the public sections that has to be paid each year. Anyway, don't matter much now, but that's where the checkerboard started. I'd bet lotsa money that we've heard o' whoever is behind the curtain. Lark.

[nateNAU]

Simple solution. Split 10 into 10n and 10s with 10n being the big bo. Then issue 0 elk, antelope and deer tags for 10n. The ranch higher ups would be kissing so much g&f butt. Sure they could fight it in court but that cost money and time. I think they would just back down. G&f needs to grow a pair and play hard ball.

[OpticNerd]

In the flyer it say the ranch and the G&F are working on extending the current existing access agreement(key words current existing) which in my mind means there will be no changes made to the current agreement other than the extension but then in the next sentence they contradict this by saying the ranch is trying to improve the quality of the hunting experience who hunt the ranch which in my mind says they trying to change the current agreement. Well which is it? Are they just working on just extending the current agreement or or they trying to change it up? I sure hope the ranch isn't working with an outfitter trying to get the outfitter exclusive hunting privileges to the ranch similar to Double D outfitters and the X-1 ranch.

[rthrbhntng]

The Arizona Elk Society is aware and involved in this issue. I can say that there are many moving pieces and it is a very difficult issue and negotiations. We don't hear any info about guides and such but that does not mean there are not outfitters behind the scenes. It is a priority issue for the AZGFD and AES.

When we get more info and can release it I will come back and try to communicate it.

Access and Elk Management are at stake here, we are talking about 1/2 of the Unit and Elk numbers.

Steve

[Str8Shot]

Steve, Half the Unit and #'s and I am wondering as it stands what percent of tag holders are already paying the permit of $60 for access and why that is not enough? I would think that more tag holders than not pay just so they have the ability to hunt the entire unit.

[208muley]

Some thoughts....... The land is checkerboard, the animals belong to the state (us). These ranches need to be opened up to all hunters to manage our animals. Money for the rancher ( if that is the issue) shouldn't factor in as that it privatizing a public resource. If this is about outfitters, like some ranches are, then the ranch should be out of a unit and no tags if the public can not use the ranch.

 

Azgfd should play hardball with these landowners/outfitters when it comes to this kind of situation. The devil is in the details and with what the BO has put out, there are no details.

 

If the ranch is 100% private then I have a whole other idea on how to work that out. I am not anti rancher nor anti outfitter but when it comes to a public resources I do believe that the public shouldn't get the shaft as we usually do. There are ways to work this out for all parties. But if the ranch is going to go hardball then so should azgfd. They hold the biggest cards in the deck.

[rthrbhntng]

The bull hunters are paying the fee but most of the cow hunters are avoiding the ranch.

We are trying to go over the cost of maintenance, which is what they agreed they were covering with the fees, so we have a better picture.

The fee has not fully covered what the costs are.

Like I said lots of people involved, many moving parts. AZGFD is trying for a longer agreement than they are looking at.

 

Not to anyone in particular - If you are of the mindset that there is no damage to infrastructure of ranches that we recreate and hunt on, you are mistaken. If you believe in the term welfare ranching and believe that ranchers only pay $1.35 per AUM, you are mistaken. Make friends with a rancher and learn about it. Read up on their allotment management plan and see what financial responsibilities the rancher has to maintain the allotment, including the wiidlife. Their are many allotments that are unused in Arizona and no one is maintaining the fences and stock tanks, this is detrimental to elk, deer and all wildlife. Just look at the numbers of horses coming across broken fences.

[Str8Shot]

Steve there is no doubt that hunters and sportsmen affect the land and some bad apple hunter cause even greater issues... Still G&F and Hunting organizations have poured a lot of money into that area for over two decades. Since 2013 and the change has all that previous work been privatized? Is the Navajo Nation and the lessee picking up the tab on everything? Or are ranch roads still being maintain by state $$$$ is there no more money being spent to upkeep and improve tanks ... are there no longer any mass clean ups by hunting organizations going on? A price can be added to anything but at $60 a head for anyone over 18 hunter or not , I find it hard to believe the costs of cleaning up after hunters is not being covered... I do not mind the fees and actually think the rules they have are fair and right ... but it is hard to believe hunters are costing them more $$$$ than they are making and without some pretty substantial proof and transparency when it comes to the real $$$$$ I am not just going to take the word of a few that their maintenance is not more than covered...

[208muley]

Steve, I totally understand that ranches have financial responsibilities in running a ranch. Are hunters supposed to cover all the expense or a portion? If a portion what %? Also is there somewhere that we can find out, or can you post exactly how many permit holders for each hunt actually pay to go on the ranch and how many "helpers" pay to go on the ranch?

 

Transparency in these items would greatly help all to form an opinion and also offer advice on this.

 

I am guilty of being knee-jerk as well as most are but if history tells us anything, hunters are the ones that tend to loose and outfitters and ranches tend to win. Transparency helps that. Thank you

[Str8Shot]

208muley .. it is not just tag holders paying the fee , any over 18 ... For instance The last time I was in that unit years ago it was 4 hunters 2 kids and 6 other adults ... Camp was left cleaner and in better shape than arriving. A group like that now will pay $602.00 to spend that 4 - 8 days out there ... If you have a second tag, like deer you will be paying again ... It adds up pretty quick ... So if you have the tag and a couple buddies go along $180 , If you are a guide $300 and proof of your license ... the $$$ would add up fast when there are almost 1500 Bull, Antlered Deer, and Antelope tags in unit 10 .. if only half of the tag holders buy a permit that is $45,000 and before they invite a buddy or take the wife along with them ... I am betting that the number of permits and total $$$$ is much much higher than that

[trphyhntr]

unit 10 is for city boys anyways

[208muley]

208muley .. it is not just tag holders paying the fee , any over 18 ... For instance The last time I was in that unit years ago it was 4 hunters 2 kids and 6 other adults ... Camp was left cleaner and in better shape than arriving. A group like that now will pay $602.00 to spend that 4 - 8 days out there ... If you have a second tag, like deer you will be paying again ... It adds up pretty quick ... So if you have the tag and a couple buddies go along $180 , If you are a guide $300 and proof of your license ... the $$$ would add up fast when there are almost 1500 Bull, Antlered Deer, and Antelope tags in unit 10 .. if only half of the tag holders buy a permit that is $45,000 and before they invite a buddy or take the wife along with them ... I am betting that the number of permits and total $$$$ is much much higher than that

I know that's why I asked about "helpers" figured that would include guides family and friends etc... Should have been more clear...

[daverp]

From my understanding it is not the owners (Navajos) but rather the lessee. Probably splitting hairs though.

 

I don't believe for one second the ranch is trying to "provide more in the way of a quality experience to the hunters that access the ranch", and seem to recall that they were making a push for landowner tags in the past.

 

My guess is they want to jack up the access fees, and will probably continue to do so until they begin to see a reduction in revenue from the higher fees. I do believe this is all about one thing, and that is making as much money off of hunters as possible, and profit in some manner from the state's (our) wildlife.

 

If their ultimate goal (and it seems it is) is to close off the ranch completely except for leasing out hunting rights to outfitters or rich hunters, my hope is G&F closes that section of the unit to all hunting, and decreases the U10 tag allotment accordingly. Let the lessee deal with the overpopulation of elk, and deal with the coyotes, lions, etc. That would, however, immediately spur the ranch into action to demand a legal method to control wildlife population on the ranch that is impacting their cattle operations negatively. In other words....landowner tags. And I imagine they'd ultimately get it, other ranchers would follow suit, and we'd lose a good chunk of hunting areas in this state.

 

I personally do not have an issue with paying the current fee. It seems reasonable to hunt this area I love. Damage is undoubtedly done to their road system by hunters during the wet months, and certainly much more so than they would have if there were no hunting on the ranch. There are costs involved for them to maintain some of these roads and keep them passable for ranch vehicles and equipment. The problem I will have is if they start jacking up the costs to profit off of hunters.

 

I do believe the "damage" and incidents reported over the years on the ranch have been over exaggerated by the ranch, and have been used at leverage in an attempt to first obtain hunter access fees, and to now attempt an increase in those fees. A cleaner, more well kept non-national park, "public access land" area in AZ, would be hard to find. The vast majority of hunters accessing this area seem to do an exceptional job of keeping it clean and leaving minimal traces, especially when compared to adjacent NF areas. I personally make an attempt to always leave with more trash than I brought in, and I know others do as well. But in the areas I hunt, there just isn't a lot of trash to be found. I've seen more beer cans and trash tossed on the side of the road in a single season of hunting 7W than I have seen in 10 years hunting the ranch. Ironically enough, many of those beer cans I often found strewn about 7W, were tossed from the window of the local rancher's truck as he made his rounds.

 

As the ranch has exaggerated hunter impact on the ranch in the past, I would be highly skeptical of any "transparency" they're offering regarding their costs here.