"Ranching for Wildlife"

[muskrat]

I got this from monstermuleys. Sorry for the length, but I thought all of the info should be posted. Anxious to see your comments....

 

 

Ranching for Wildlife: A Proposal for Arizona

 

Prepared By: Manuel Nikel-Zueger

 

 

Overview

 

In Arizona, the quantity and quality of wildlife is not optimal. This is the result of many contributing factors, not the least of which is the imbalanced relationship between the rights of private landowners and wildlife, which is managed by the State Game and Fish Department.

Many landowners, hunters, outfitters, and guides believe that a ?Ranching for Wildlife? program similar to those that exist in other western states is a fundamental step towards creating healthier wildlife with better habitat while fully acknowledging and respecting the property rights of private landowners.

 

Description of the Problem

 

Landowners, principally ranchers and other agriculturalists, whose livelihoods rely upon the careful management of natural resources, are encumbered in many places by elk, deer (couse deer and mule deer), and/or antelope. For example, an elk consumes a substantial amount of forage, perhaps seventy-five percent the forage a cow consumes. Deer and antelope consume less, but deer, antelope, and elk all eat the same vegetation that cows eat. Therefore each additional big game animal on a ranch reduces (to a varying extent) the number of cattle that can be run on a ranch. In Arizona, this problem has grown considerably because elk populations have grown substantially in the past two decades. Not only have numbers grown, but elk have expanded into more territory.

Consumption of forage is not the only cost wildlife imposes on private property owners. Elk are the most destructive. They often tear down fences, though deer can also, while antelope either go under fences or between the wires. Downed fences have to be repaired, which incurs material and labor costs, and time is spent finding and returning cattle.

Elk and other wildlife also rely on the improvements that ranchers and other landowners provide for their operations, such as water troughs, dirt tanks (which capture run-off rain water), salt, and protein supplements. Wildlife also benefit from the restricted access hunters have on private land, which can encourage the residence of wildlife.

Landowners want to control the access hunters have on their land in order to ensure that the land is respected. Landowners attempt to minimize unnecessary roads, trash, and even the occasional dead cow or calf killing. In addition, landowners are legitimately concerned about preventing any easements by prescription, which limit the landowner?s property rights and ability to be a steward of the land. Stricter access controls on private lands are largely the result of increased human populations in the state, and increased hunting pressure, both of which have increased trespassing.

Unfortunately, the cost that wildlife, especially big game wildlife, imposes on landowners does not create incentives for progressive steps to manage for wildlife, despite the fact that landowners enjoy wildlife. This is because private landowners have little recourse to the benefits that wildlife could otherwise provide. The benefits of seeing big game wildlife or charging access fees is too small relative to the costs wildlife impose. In fact, Arizona is the only western state where landowners do not receive any form of compensation for damages caused by wildlife.

Making matters worse is that the quality of management provided by the State?s Game and Fish Department is less than satisfying. This view is not only held by private landowners but also by many hunters. Landowners complain about working with Game and Fish, noting generally that most efforts are a waste of time. Many landowners are wary about dealing with the agency because most grants for habitat improvements or other infrastructure improvements that would benefit wildlife are contingent on Game and Fish obtaining public access. With respect to big game hunters, they are given only a short time frame during which they can hunt. Short seasons also mean that hunters are out at the same time, and if they have done their scouting, hunter densities in an area can be high, leading to less enjoyable and less successful hunting experiences. High densities of hunters can also lead to a greater negative impact on the natural resources. In all, management of our wildlife and natural resources, as well as hunting experiences, can be improved.

Some argue that private landowners exercise their private property rights by restricting access while offering hunters either access for a fee and/or guided hunts for a fee. While private property owners certainly can (and some do) receive revenues from such measures, landowners are merely trying to capitalize on their resources in order to stay in business. That landowners are due compensation for damages caused by wildlife is an issue distinct from a landowner?s right to charge access fees on or through private lands. Revenues from access or guided hunt fees never outweigh the costs of damages.

At the heart of this issue is the question of the bundle of rights that belong to private property with respect to wildlife. Do landowners have any right to compensation for the losses they incur as a result of damage done and forage consumed by wildlife, principally big game such as elk, deer, and antelope? The State of Arizona receives all revenues from hunting whereas private landowners go empty-handed while paying many of the costs of providing for wildlife by way of land, forage, water, roads, and other infrastructure. Private Landowners should share in the revenues. Understanding that incentives matter, if private property owners were to have a stake in the hunting industry, they would certainly manage their ranches for both cattle and wildlife.

 

Ranching for Wildlife: The Idea

 

A certain number of hunting tags for all big game species that are found on a ranch are given to the ranch (landowner) at the price for which the hunter would purchase them from the state if he had drawn a tag. These tags are completely transferable and saleable. This is a form of compensation to the landowner which gives him a definitive stake in managing the ranch in a way that incorporates wildlife as an essential part of the mix. A Ranching for Wildlife program in Arizona must be an explicit recognition of the right a landowner has to compensation for damages, especially since there is no such recognition in Arizona.

In order to make this program acceptable to the public and to the State Game and Fish Department, the landowner must participate in a ?Wildlife Management Plan? that is specific to the ranch. Annual review by a board comprised of the landowner, a representative from the Game and Fish and an independent third party (perhaps by a qualified professional from the University of Arizona Extension Service) will review progress towards the implementation of the management plan and its effectiveness. In addition, a proportion of the tags allocated to the landowner will be allotted as a public access tag on the ranch.

 

 

The Pilot Program

 

Before a wide-scale program is implemented, a pilot program should be adopted in order for the State to familiarize itself with the program and to identify ways in which the program can be improved. A pilot program would comprise several ranches which are identified as prime candidates with respect to certain criteria such as ranch size and elk populations. The duration of the pilot program is negotiable but a three year trial would allow sufficient time to judge the effectiveness of implementing the program, as well as observing initial results. With this approach, changes could be considered and attempted, perhaps even by adding one or two additional ranches to the program. The pilot program could also be extended an additional year or two if it is believed that more time is needed to make the process more effective. The pilot program would not exceed five years before the policies and procedures become final.

 

Preliminary Policies and Procedures

 

? A landowner must have at least 5,000 acres of private land in order to participate.

 

? Landowners that border one another, none of which own 5,000 acres, can submit an application (if their combined private lands are at least 5,000 acres) that their lands be managed together in one management plan.

 

? A task force comprised of two Game and Fish Department personnel, two eligible landowners or their representatives, and two University of Arizona Extension Service personnel will draw up and agree on norms, by majority vote, for the application procedure and the method of scientific estimation of big game wildlife populations.

 

? Each aspiring participant must file an application with the State Game and Fish Department that includes legal description of all participating lands and adequate maps that indicate the topography and the borders of the participating lands.

 

 

? The application must include scientific estimates of all big game wildlife that resides on the applicant?s lands. The method of estimation approved by the task force must be used by all participants in the program.

 

? Upon approval of the application, a wildlife management plan that specifies the landowner?s short term and long term objectives and the actions that will be taken to achieve those objectives must be submitted.

 

? State and federal lands to which a landowner has a lease can be included in the landowner?s ?Wildlife Management Plan.? (Those lands, however, cannot be counted towards the 5,000 acres of private land required for participation.)

 

? Management of state and federal lands in the Ranching for Wildlife program does not in any way prevent the public from accessing those lands to which they have legal access.

 

? Upon approval of the wildlife management plan, the applicant will receive a license for the area described in the management plan.

 

? Licenses are valid for five years. Landowners participating in the pilot program will be licensed throughout the term of the pilot program. As the maximum possible length of the pilot program is five years, all pilot program participants must reapply at the conclusion of the pilot program.

 

? The number of transferable tags allocated to a landowner for each big game species (antelope, deer, and elk) will be calculated with respect to the number of acres of private property and the number of animals that use the private lands. Specific means of calculating tag numbers will be negotiated by the task force and will be subject to alteration during the pilot program. Because of the nature of transferable wildlife tags and each management plan, all participating landowners will have ranch specific harvests. In other words, there should be some measure of flexibility for setting tag numbers, given varying management objectives.

 

? Licensed landowners will have a one hundred day season window for all hunts on their private lands and the lands they lease. Flexible season dates allow landowners the necessary time to harvest a specific amount of animals while ensuring high quality hunts and decreased hunting pressure.

 

? The landowner will allocate one in ten of his or her transferable wildlife tags per specie for a public access lottery. (For example, if a particular landowner is only allocated five tags a year, in this case, the ranch specific public access tag would be granted every second year.) Ranch specific public access tags, like any other tag from a landowner are usable only on the landowner?s lands, subject to the norms delineated in the management plan.

 

? The Arizona State Game and Fish Department will be responsible for a lottery sale of ranch specific public access tags for each landowner. The monies collected from the lottery are payable to the landowner, with the exception of the Arizona State Game and Fish Department?s administrative costs.

 

? When a hunter draws a ranch specific public access tag from the lottery, that hunter must wait three years before purchasing another ticket for the same management area.

 

? Only Arizona residents may participate in drawing ranch specific public access tags. The price per ticket will be $20 and the maximum number of tickets that can be bought per person is 5. Tags that are won are not transferable.

 

? A hunter that has purchased a transferable tag or won a ranch specific public access tag can hunt with rifles, bows, and muzzleloaders at any time during a landowner?s approved season dates.

 

? Participating landowners will undergo a performance review annually by a review board, which is comprised of one Game and Fish Department personnel, the landowner or his or her representative and one University of Arizona Extension Service personnel. Landowners whose management plans include state and/or federal lands will invite one official from the respective departments to participate in the review.

 

? Landowners are solely responsible for the implementation of the objectives enumerated in their specific management plans.

 

? Failure to comply with the stated objectives in their management plans may result in the loss of the landowner?s transferable wildlife tags.

 

? The final decision to terminate any landowner?s wildlife management plan will not be given to the review board. The review board may formally declare that a landowner?s plan is suspect to termination, at which time a larger board will make a final decision. This larger board will comprise of participating landowners, two AG&F personnel, two State Land Department personnel, and two UA Extension Service personnel. Decisions are reached by simple majority.

 

? A landowner may terminate his or her participation in the Ranching for Wildlife program with written notification to the Arizona State Game and Fish Department and the return of his or her license. Transferable tags still held by the landowner must be returned.

[muskrat]

I thought this was something new, but I received an e-mail saying it's been around for awhile..... it might be a false alarm

 

Anyone know anything about this?

[Couesi1]

Pretty scary stuff! This kind of stuff on top of what just happened with the law suit thing last summer should really galvanize we sportsmen. Don't be apathetic. Before you know it, these folks might have their own tags! Does anyone really want to see that? the plan proposes that the ranch can purchase tags at what it normally would cost a hunter to draw. However, it says nothing about what the ranch can sell them for. That's a red flag to me when combined with the statement about being compensated for losses due to wildlife depredation. This implies that tags will likely go to the highest bidder. Is that gonna hurt the hard working average joe, or what? Sure looks like it.

Couesi1

[.270]

Az. hunting just died. i'm sick. Lark.

[muskrat]

OK, after looking into this, it first appeared on AZOD back in February.

 

I can't figure out if it was just an idea that was "tossed out there" in editorial form, or whether it has some official sanction or endorsement from AZGF.

 

Regardless, it's not new - so might not be anything to it....

[.270]

the way the commission is doin' the backstroke, it's gonna happen. anybody with 4 acres is gonna get an elk tag. and hunters can forget getting drawn anymore. and i guarantee you taulman is involved. Lark.

[Rembrant]

The double speak involed in this bullpucky makes it sound like it was written by John Kerry, i.e:

"The quantity and quality of wildlife is not optimal...because of an imbalanced relationship between the rights of private land owners and wildlife, which is managed by the state G&F Dept." (Will someone who is smarter than me please tell me what this means?)

"...wildlife can benifit from the restricted access hunters have on private land, which can encourage the residence of wildlife."

Now what the heck is this guy saying?? Too many elk? Not enough elk? What??

The age old arguement as I understand it is that there are too many elk on ranches, right? So then the guy says, "...hunter densities are too high leading to less enjoyable and less succesfull hunting experiences."

So theres too many elk AND too many hunters? How else are the elk gonna get killed?

This guy implies that coues deer also compete with elk.

And that deer tear down fences.

And he makes it sound like the Game Dept has victimized ranchers.

Here are some things the Dept and WE sportsmen have done to appease these whining victims:

LAND ACCESS PROGRAM and our cooperation - without which there would be NO ACCESS granted.

DEPREDATION HUNTS - to reduce elk populations in sensitive areas.

ADOPT-A-RANCH - Voluntary ranch clean-ups by sportsmen and women.

RANGE MONITORING by the Dept. (this costs money)

NATURAL RESOURCE GROUPS like The RMEF, Mule Deer and Antelope Foundations and others spend thousands of dollars and man hours fencing out elk, building water encatchments, cleaning out stock tanks to benifit wildlife and guess what else? Livestock.

If this kind of proposal is granted then the money that the ranchers get for the tags would NOT go towards law enforcement.

And I am really suspicious about the reference to actual private property, of which there is actually very little. I think this is a smoke screen. Aren't ranchers already denying access to BLM, State and Forest lands just because the main road goes through a tiny piece of private property?

These guys are gold digging.

Cousi1 is right, we gotta figure out how to write our congressmen and get our voices heard above the ranching lobbyists.

Mike

[ultramag]

why dont they just say it .ranchers what to be just like the ranches in texas, they can charge big bucks for bill jordan to come kill a monster on there land and then be on the outdoor channel,and have" coveted landowner tags"and price every one out it, if this happens, every ranch gate in az will be locked for sure its already bad now just wait and see, why dont the game and fish just kick us all in the nuts and get it over with

[bowsniper]

The ranchers are really pushing this. That's why they closed down unit 10 this Fall, a power play to push this agenda. This would turn Arizona hunting into a rich boy's sport. We have to band together and tell game and fish that we're not going to put up with this crap!

 

Bowsniper

[akbowhunter]

The RFW programs actually work pretty well at opening up new land if implemented correctly. Most top-notch private land in other western states is already off-limits to everyone due to outfitters locking up landowners with payments. These outfitters don't allow anyone onto "their" property without paying the full fee. At least the RFW program (if implemented correctly) gives a certain percentage--like 10% to the general public through the draw system. I know it isn't much, but something is better than nothing. Also, they must impose limits on the size of ranches. In Colorado, they have implemented a pretty good system and it works better than the old system at getting "Joe Public" into some great opportunities to hunt private land that they would have not been able to hunt previously without paying the outfitter controlling that land. It would really be nice if the Indian Reservations were required to follow the same guidelines. If they are going to implement it anyway, it wouldn't hurt to have hunter input in the formulation of the system instead of just ignoring the issue. Just a perspective from someone outside Arizona--maybe I don't have enough background to comment and if this seems off-base--I apologize...

[m1280]

as of now there is strength in numbers, doesnt do any good to just read this crap(context) and complain, call the game and fish and vent!! thats why i live here and not in co. or nm. find out what you can do and lets act!!! i'm calling the game and fish to enlighten myself and will get back w/ what they say -mike-

[Rembrant]

Arizona is NOT mostly private like other states. Arizona is mostly FOREST, and STATE and BLM land.

That is what makes a proposal like this absurd. These turkeys are trying to eventually lock up their LEASES. Very few ranches in this state have enough private land to make this proposal work for them.

Even the Big Boquillas in unit 10 is checkerboarded with state and BLM land. The land is not all theirs - it theirs and OURS. Yet they locked gates during hunts this year.

Everybody, pull out a good map of your favorite hunting places. Look at how the land is devided between private and public. Now think about the closed roads in your whitetail area that you know about. Look again at the land that is affected by these road closures. Is all that land that you can't drive to prive or public??!

This tag proposal is not all about tags for private land. These ranches are already closing roads that keep us out of tons of public land, and this is what they are gonna want the tags for - the giant leases of public lands.

Mike

[m1280]

alright, i just got off the phone w/ g&f here in tucson and talked w/ tom whetten the information and education program mngr for tucson and this is what he said; the az g&f is biology managed and driven, not politcally managed, hence the director is appointed by the 5 commision members and not the govenor -napalireno- as lark would say. commision members are rolled yearly and if there is a problem he/she can only go to the commision and not the director. second, when the commision convenes ,once a month, no matter how absurd a topic is, when brought up it must be heard. as w/ any official meeting minutes are recorded and available ,as many of you know, on th az g&f website for your perusal. tom whetten told me that the idea is old hat and has been heard before and that thier focus and position is to NOT IMPLEMENT the idea of giving ranchers tags at face value and letting them profit from higher prices to the wealthy hunters and denying access to us joes and our kids. in the wake of the '10% ruling' this as well as many other 'suggestions' are heard and debated, so my 2 cents would be know who your officials are and read or attend the minutes/meetings as often as possible and spread the word gather the facts and let 'them' know that we are connected and we will be heard!! hope this helps. now bring on the dec hunt!

[Rembrant]

Good job m1280!

This kind of thing would come before our state legislators and senators in the form of an initiative. If the legislators rule in favor of something like this then the Game Dept would be ordered to enforce it. It is not the Dept's job to be politically active. They were in court with USO because they got drug in there and sued!

Our job is to find out who our legislators are and then contact them via mail, e-mail, and phone calls to express our opinions - whether there is a bad initiative before them or not.

But especially if some looney tunes go before the legislature, we gotta raise a ruckus.

Here's an example: 11 States just passed amendments to their constitutions that say that marraige can only be between a man and a woman. This was brought up to a public vote in eleven states and was passed soundly in all eleven.

Before this happened the same thing was proposed for our Federal constitution. This Federal amendment change was brought before the senate and did not pass. Why? because the senators have to listen to their constituants (thats us) and the people in favor of not passing this amendment were louder than the people who wanted it.

We gotta start paying attention to what's goin on in the senate and the house so that we don't get caught sleeping.

Do you think any corn-ball initiative would get passed if every sportsman and woman in the state said NO!

We have tremendous power people!

Mike

[coueshunter]

This is a very very real threat and we all need to do like Rembrandt suggests and contact Kyle/McCain and ensure that our voices are heard. After the USO situation we cannot sit back and assume anything, we must scream/yell/shout whatever to make sure we are heard over and over again. If anyone doesnt believe that the AZGFD is political, then you are fooling yourself. Almost everything in life is political in one way or another, so make your political voices heard to the appropriate people or landowner tags will be a reality as early as next year....Allen.....