Unit 32

[Brush Buster]

I also have a tag for az unit 32 this year.

 

I chose to apply in this unit because access was an issue. Was hoping I could go into places others would not be willing to.

 

These kind of places usually produce more game than areas with roads and public access everywhere. I plan to use one of the few legal access points to enter the public land. Once on public I will stay on public and travle cross country to wherever I want. There still seams like plenty of ways to get anywhere in the unit to me. It just might have to be on foot or horseback.

[audsley]

So do you want to do something about it? You can.

 

You can petition the Pinal County Board of Supervisors to open the road. It will help if you live in Pinal County, but it's not necessary. Let me know if you're interested and I'll help. I'll do the same for anyone else who wants to take on this battle in southern Arizona.

 

If you decide this battle is worth fighting, you do have some allies in government. Game & Fish is a strong advocate for hunter access and has excellent expertise on this issue. Coronado National Forest is also on your side because the forest service believes in multiple use and does not want to see large parts of the forest drift into single use because other users were denied access. I haven't tried working with BLM.

 

You'll also have vigorous opponents, starting with the State Land Dept. which is backed up by the governor's office. State Land and the governor's administration have a preservationist mindset and seem to have never met a locked gate they didn't like. I believe State Land may be encouraging this behavior among landowners.

 

In some counties, county supervisors and county attorneys will be on your side. But in other counties you'll encounter officials who own ranches, or have relatives who do, and they're locking gates and themselves. And in rural counties, local hunters can often get through a locked gate because they know the landowner, and local voters may feel that locking out hunters from the city isn't necessarily a bad thing. The local politician who supports locking gates might actually win votes.

 

I've been dealing with issue rather intensively, and the biggest obstacle has been getting hunters and the rest of the public off their backsides and into the fray. When it comes to government, most hunters would rather let others doing their fighting. But in a democracy, where numbers matter, that doesn't work well.

 

The path of least resistance is to simply find somewhere else to hunt. But that's only going to work for a while, until the few remaining places we can access are packed with hunters. Then it won't be fun anymore.

 

Like I said, contact me if you're interested in actually doing something. The Unit 32 case is more promising than some others.

 

 

 

[bobbyo]

Does anyone have a list of roads that are closed. What about the east?

[jonesface]

Does anyone have a list of roads that are closed. What about the east?

Yeah I bet you that selfish Outfitter does. I bet you he can tell you all of the roads he had closed.

[BACKCOUNTRY]

Any word on Deer Creek road on the east side?

 

This road has been a big concern for years.

[JMP]

Any word on Deer Creek road on the east side?

 

This road has been a big concern for years.

 

 

deer creek road is still open (as of last weekend)... one of the funnel spots everyone uses to access the wilderness.

[Noel Arnold]

I will say the same thing I said in another post.It is the fault of the Game and Fish,Forrest service , and the state for letting private land owners block public access.I have no problem with land owners protecting there land and I know and understand the frustration of slob people leaving gates open and driving cross country and etc.But it still is not right to block access.One of the thing's that has made Arizona a great place to live and enjoy the great outdoors has been our availibility to the land.We our losing this now and I think it is going to get worse.I stopped hunting unit 32 last year because of this.

Noel

[NRS]

If anyone finds out the outfitter's name, they might check with the State land Department and BLM in Safford to see if he has the appropriate permits to be making money off the public and state lands.

[audsley]

Noel Arnold,

 

It is NOT the fault of Game & Fish or the Forest Service for "letting" private landowners lock up their land. Game & Fish has no legal authority whatsoever to condemn land or force a landowner to unlock a gate on private land. In fact, Game & Fish can't even cross private land to get to public land without a landowner's permission.

 

You're slightly closer to the truth with the Forest Service because that agency at least has the legal authority to condemn private land. But condemnation amounts to more than just making a landowner unlock a gate. If the Forest Service wants to force unlocking of the gate, it will need to condemn the property on and under the road bed and take adverse possession, which means they will have to compensate the landowner for his loss. This becomes a cumbersome process as it leaves Dept. of Agriculture and is taken over by the Justice Dept and then anything can happen. Generally speaking, the Forest Service doesn't want to go around condemning and taking possession of property because (1)it would cause an uprising, and (2)every landowner who could lock a gate would probably do so immediately just to sell the property. (If you can't control it, why not sell it?) And what is a strip of road and the land underneath on ranch property worth? Not much, in my opinion, but the landowner may feel otherwise, especially if losing it deprives him of the "right" to control access to public lands and possibly make a little money from that.

 

Game & Fish and the Forest Service are among the good guys in this battle.

[JMP]

do any of these people lease the public lands around their property... why not deny leasing rights to those who block off access.

 

 

[audsley]

do any of these people lease the public lands around their property... why not deny leasing rights to those who block off access.

 

The answer is yes, ranchers do lease continguous and adjacent public lands for grazing rights. And yes, that could be done. The State Land Dept. could do this if they chose to, but instead they seem more inclined to discourage public access to state trust lands. With enough support in the legislature, Arizona could pass a law requiring them to do that as a condition of the lease.

 

But for BLM and Forest Service lands, our legislature would be powerless because the state doesn't manage Federal lands. Earlier I said the Forest Service was one of the good guys on access, but they could be much better. I believe the Forest Service and BLM could also make public access a condition of the lease, but I've never heard of them doing that anywhere. If they did, I would expect the Arizona Cattlegrowers Association, Farm Bureau and other rancher support organizations to start making trouble for the land agency in various ways, starting with the press and eventually their Congressmen who in turn would turn up the heat on the agency. It would probably lead to all-out war by ranchers on the agencies. And who would stand should-to-shoulder alongside the agencies that were fighting for their access? Hunters, hikers, birdwatchers and prospectors? I doubt it. The public would likely stand idly by while the land agency takes a pounding, and the land agencies know that, so why bother? If the public won't fight for its own access, why should they? But if the public ever started fighting on its own, I believe the agencies would help.

[Bird Dog]

I think most outfitters at some point forget that "we" were all the same types of hunters at one time. ie. not enough money to hire help or just looking forward to a good time with family and friends. I think guiding is the down fall of modern hunting because of the focus guide and outfitters usually place on the hunt including the money=success mentality. It is one thing to secure a deal and hunt on private land but to secure land that has roads developed and indirectly maitained by pulic dollars that cross public land is WRONG. The cattle permits that are used in most of Arizona are just that a privildge just as our hunting permits we buy. I am not saying all guides are bad there are many on this site that seem very reputable. Just somthing to think about when you draw your next archery elk hunt and scout as much as you can only to be cut off by your buddy making money with a complete stranger.

 

I understand a bit about the "Mercer" ranch because back in 2002, I was around when "Lori" was very upset about the hunters not covering T.P. and leaving garbage in the camp sites. I spent my "Monday" morning picking up trash to help calm her down and then only to be told the next year I had to pay to access the ranch. Ok and so it is, but to lock up surrounding concessions of land that eliminates a good portion of the Western side of 32 is not right for a single outfitter.

 

This battle needs to go to a higher place than just G&F because there are not enough resources at G&F to help. They are under staffed and in most cases work harder than they pay reflects. I believe this will become larger than just a 32 issue or other ranches eventually because the "cattle" people feel they own the world and have forgotten there land has always been shared. Why do you think everyone they have been around eventually they have faught. If they had to pay for the price of their business they would be a thing of the past. Unlike hunting that supports conservation with millions of dollars a year.

[JMP]

last weekend i was down near private land in 31 scouting, and noticed in a prominent camp site that there was trash thrown everywhere, concentrated in the fire ring. it could have been hunters, it could have been kids out drinking, it could have been anyone. i picked some of it up. do any of the sportsmen organizations organize trash pickups? perhaps that could help with landowner relations, if it is truly a vanalism/litter issue.

 

some how, though, i think that's just an excuse to close off access. i talked with the cowboy at deer creek ranch one day last year, he said the owner just doesn't like people being there period.

[Noel Arnold]

Audsley,

I understand your point about Game and Fish.Remember I have no problem with ranchers locking off there private land because of all the trouble.Heck I would do the same.I am talking about the state or federal,or whoever owns the public land.It is there responsibility to make a road around the private land.After all most of us are the ones paying these state taxes.So in some way we actually own some of the rights to the public land.

[Bird Dog]

last weekend i was down near private land in 31 scouting, and noticed in a prominent camp site that there was trash thrown everywhere, concentrated in the fire ring. it could have been hunters, it could have been kids out drinking, it could have been anyone. i picked some of it up. do any of the sportsmen organizations organize trash pickups? perhaps that could help with landowner relations, if it is truly a vanalism/litter issue.

 

some how, though, i think that's just an excuse to close off access. i talked with the cowboy at deer creek ranch one day last year, he said the owner just doesn't like people being there period.

Yes, two years ago, I was involved with Matt W. and Ben B. at Mammoth picking up garbage as an event to ease tension in the area for hunters. Specifically the Mercers. There were people that showed up but not too many.

 

I think many of the ranchers just don't like people being around period. Not all of them though. Like I said earlier, man have forgotten the land is shared around what they own.

 

So, why can we as sportsmen get some legislative support to start roads/access around the private property and then later have the heavy equiptment come in to finalize the access.