Big Boguillas Gone?

[trphyhntr]

 You can still walk on and hunt there can’t you? Or is it well posted? Idk I’ve never been 

[4huntrs]

17 minutes ago, yotebuster said:

So let me get this straight, you think that any private land in the state of AZ should have the animals herded off of it and a high fence put up around it to keep the state owned critters off of it?  Or do you just want that on this one ranch?  We fencing off rezs too?  Herding their elk off (they aren’t gonna like that  )?  How about your yard, fence that off too?  Again where do we draw this line of property right pillaging?  Just big ranches that we used to have unrestricted access to?  Or small ones too?  

You have completely missed the point. That’s a bit of sarcasm. But to start Reservations are Sovereign Nations not private land. If someone closes a lot to hunting it doesn’t change the entire make up of the Unit. The ranch can close I said that. Fine but don’t sell the animals to the highest bidder. Arizona has avoided that system and I personally don’t want to see it change. 

[yotebuster]

2 minutes ago, 4huntrs said:

You have completely missed the point. That’s a bit of sarcasm. But to start Reservations are Sovereign Nations not private land. If someone closes a lot to hunting it doesn’t change the entire make up of the Unit. The ranch can close I said that. Fine but don’t sell the animals to the highest bidder. Arizona has avoided that system and I personally don’t want to see it change. 

So what if the owners of the ranch (Navajo) were able to annex the ranch into the reservation.  Then you’re back to cool with them shutting down access and smoking big bucks and bulls for big dollars?  That’s just a paperwork change and a color on a map ya know.  
 

The take home is it’s their land, their choice.  You’re cool with it if it’s dark yellow on Onx and it’s sovereign nation land but not if it’s private on Onx?  Only difference is some of it we stole and gave back to them and the other stuff we stole and they bought it back.  

[stillatmaxpoints]

Lots of conspiracy theories going on here. 

Could be the ranch wanted to raise the fee's a very small amount.

Could be the G&F wanted to change the structure entirely and pay the ranch one lump sum, and the ranch would have less control of who is there and who isn't.

Very possible and it could be.

 

[4huntrs]

1 minute ago, yotebuster said:

So what if the owners of the ranch (Navajo) were able to annex the ranch into the reservation.  Then you’re back to cool with them shutting down access and smoking big bucks and bulls for big dollars?  That’s just a paperwork change and a color on a map ya know.  

Nope. Would not be happy about it. But that’s a completely different issue to try and keep that from happening. If it did Game and Fish and State money would no longer be  involved. 

[NOTAGS]

If  the Nav Nation wants to eliminate  access, then the GF should remove the tags from unit 10 just as they did with 19B when land barons  closed access.  ...screw the pay to play with state resources. Let the Nav deal with overpopulation of game animals  if that’s possible in our state.  Since the Nav’s have a casino, as with all other tribes that do, cut them off from state and federal aid as they are supposed to be self sufficient and sustaining once they get their precious gaming pact.  Run your crap like a real business, rather than a government subsidized one.  

[4huntrs]

3 minutes ago, NOTAGS said:

If  the Nav Nation wants to eliminate  access, then the GF should remove the tags from unit 10 just as they did with 19B when land barons  closed access.  ...screw the pay to play with state resources. Let the Nav deal with overpopulation of game animals  if that’s possible in our state.  Since the Nav’s have a casino, as with all other tribes that do, cut them off from state and federal aid as they are supposed to be self sufficient and sustaining once they get their precious gaming pact.  Run your crap like a real business, rather than a government subsidized one.  

Kind of a Tangent here but If I remember right Chairman McDonald went to prison over this land purchase. He was one of the investors that bought the land then sold it to the Nation for a multimillion dollar profit. 

[Explorer]

I wouldn't close it but they could end up making it two units. I might be wrong but there are not even 65 antelope tags in any unit anymore. The prairies are filling with little houses. $hitty little houses full of 

[dentedr]

Private land rights should be upheld but…

If the “conspiracy theories” are correct and they are closing it to prevent access and make it a “rich mans game” to charge extra money like the ORO ranch  then I say horses**t!!!! And f that!!!

[Newbie2012]

24 minutes ago, Explorer said:

I wouldn't close it but they could end up making it two units. I might be wrong but there are not even 65 antelope tags in any unit anymore. The prairies are filling with little houses. $hitty little houses full of 

GMU10 had 140 antelope tags this year. 1975 elk tags. 

[Flatlander]

5 hours ago, yotebuster said:

Dang.  So where do you guys draw the line with property rights?  
 

Ok.  So just 50,000 acres pieces of PRIVATELY owned land?  That’s the only ones you want the government to blackmail access out of the owner by “shutting down” hunting on it?!?  
 

The epitome of government overreach is me telling YOU what you can and can’t do on your own land.  
 

Either lobby for change in corner crossing and then strap your boots on and hike through it,

1. Private property rights end at the property line.

2. I don’t think anyone is contesting property rights. What is being contested is the rights to the wildlife on the property. If the owners of the ranch don’t want hunters on their ranch, that’s fine and it seems AZGFD is willing to accommodate that. Owning the dirt or the grazing rights doesn’t entitle anyone to the wildlife.

3. I didn’t see anyone propose saying what they could do on their land. However, there are plenty of laws about what we can and can’t do on our own property. The government tells me when I can have a fire, how tall my house can be, where I can put it on my lot, etc. All because my choices, even on my property, impact many other people. This isn’t any different.

4. There are lots of people working on corner crossing right now. 

[HuntHarder]

Checkerboard land ownership is shoot and should have never happened.... but it did.  Reducing tags is the only thing Game and fish can really do.  Less animals to hunt for the masses, less tags, seems pretty straight forward. 

As for high fencing it and taking the animals off? Really need to lay off the meth.  IIRC, the big bo is 2/3 private, 1/3 leased land.  How would you feel if they told you, you needed to give all your land assets to the state because its too big of a piece of land.  Seems socialistic at the very minimum.  

[lancetkenyon]

Have you seen the damage that "hunters" do to the Big Bo each year after 5 months of hunting season?  Shooting up tanks, cutting fences, tearing up roads, driving off roads and causing land damage, shooting windmills, letting cattle out of unclosed gates or cut fences, leaving tons of trash and litter??

I would close it too if I owned it.  

[Explorer]

11 hours ago, Newbie2012 said:

GMU10 had 140 antelope tags this year. 1975 elk tags. 

Not anymore...

[Explorer]

Checker boarding state land is a result of the railroad companies back in the day. Wonder how much it costs in signs to post such a large chunk of land.