Everyone please look at this!

[Rembrant]

On the 26th of this month the Arizona State Legeslature will be hearing a proposal entitled, Item #6, "Ranching for Wildlife" - "Wildlife Management on Private Lands".

This is the proposal that involves the allocation of big game tags to ranchers for resale to the highest bidders.

I do not know exactly what all is included in this proposal, but we - the sportsmen and women of this state, need to find out. Fast!

This could be astronomically worse than the USO fiasco.

Please do not take my word for it. This is not a rumor. Check out this web site:

www.azleg.state.az.us/

Look under "2005 Legislative Session"

Click on "Committee Agendas"

Find "Natural Resources and Rural Affairs" and click on that link.

This proposal will be heard at 1:30 pm on Wednesday 1-26-05 in room # SH109.

I would hope a whole bunch of C.W.com people can be there.

 

This will be proposed by:

Arvin Trujillo - Navajo Nation Dept. of Natural Resources

Steve Rich - Wildlife consultant

John Peay - Former Director of Utah Game and Fish Commission

Fred Hinkelmeyer - Sportsman

 

Sounds like the Navajos are trying to lock up unit 10's Big Boquillas Ranch.

We have dicussed this before. The Navajo tribe owns the Boquillas Ranch but it is almost completely checkerboarded with state land that is leased by the ranch.

To lock up this land and allow the tribe to sell tags that are allocated by the State of Arizona would be a travesty!

But Unit 10 is only a small piece of state and federal lands that are leased by ranches.

The last I heard, there are about 18 ranches in the Northern part of the state alone that are pooling their resources, with their lawers, to make this power-play.

 

What can we do?

Go to: "How do I find my Legislators" on the home page of the above mentioned web site, and e-mail, write and/or phone your represenitives, and tell them that you are vehemently against this proposal and the privitization of our state's big game tags.

These greedy people are trying to turn Arizona's wonderful hunting opportunities into something that would more resemble Texas, where public hunting lands are limited and only the wealthy can afford the best tags.

Also, help me find the facts. The information I have on this is sketchy. Let's learn the facts - fast! And then let's educate all of the hunters in this state and flood the State legislature with our VOICE!

 

Mike

[BASS]

oh that wold suck! I'm passing it on...

[Rembrant]

I found an article that we have seen before:

http://www.azod.com/topstory/Archive/2004/...r%20Arizona.htm Or find it easier by searching "ranching for wildlife, arizona proposal."

 

This is entitled, "Ranching for Wildlife; A Proposal for Arizona".

One of the bullet points is this: "State and Federal lands to which a landowner has a lease may be included in the land owner's wildlife management plan."

 

This is the worst thing that could ever happen.

 

If a rancher has under his lease, state and federal lands that can be included in his wildlife management plan, and he is allotted private big game permits for it, then that would mean that public big game tags as we know them now would be excluded from these lands.

The only other kind of land is Forest Service land.

Get maps of your favorite hunt units and look to see how much of any particular unit is State and Federal lands and how much is Forest Service.

Do the whitetail (or any other) hunters want to be limited to hunting only on the National Forests?

But wait a minute, aren't National Forests also Federal lands?!

If this proposal passes we won't have hunt units. We will have "Ranch management areas", devided by the various ranching leases, with tags going to the highest bidders.

Welcome to Texas

Mike

[Rembrant]

At least in Texas the private land is actually private land - good for them.

These greedy Arizona ranchers are trying to strong-arm us out of our state and federal lands, They do not own these lands. WE DO!

Mike

[bcoover]

If that passed I would have a bull elk tag every year, instead of some out of state piece shi*t getting drawn and hunting on my ranch in 23.

[Diamondbackaz]

I disagree about the inclusion of placing public lands in a ranchers "wildlife managment plan". I believe that this plan can increase some hunt opportunities, especially on lands that are currently off limits to hunting. This could be a good thing. Large land owners do have legitimate gripes with Elk damage to their land and should have a say on how the wildlife is managed on it.

[Rembrant]

Diamondbackaz,

Which lands that are currently off limits to hunting would this proposal increase hunting opportunities for? Be specific.

This proposal will offer private negotiable big game tags to people who own 2000 or more acres. I'm glad that you disagree about the inclusion of public lands in Rancher's "Wildlife Management Plans", or WMP's.

BUT, That is NOT what the proposal states. They are asking for entire leases to be under the control of the ranchers.

Most ranchers don't own more than a few sq. miles of land (if that much). the rest of their ranch is leased from us. How many tags is a responsible management plan goin to allocate for a few square miles? Not many. Keep in mind that a person that is willing to pay a high dollar amount will want to kill a quality animal.

This will not change the lifestyle of a rancher; this is not what they are trying to get, and this is not what is in the proposal. They want it all

 

Bcoover,

How much of your ranch in unit 23 is actually owned by your family and how much is leased? I don't have enough money to negotiate a price for a tag from you on land that is already mine. Not in this lifetime.

Mike

[Diamondbackaz]

I am specifically speaking of the many private lands that are now closed to hunting that could be opened up since a private land owner now has an incentive to allow hunting on their land. I cut and pasted that section and high lighted in bold (listed below), that small land owners will not be able to be included in public land leases. I am still totally against any private WMP for any type of public land. As you stated, there probably not a whole lot of land owners with 2000 acres of land.

 

? 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 2,000 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.

[audsley]

I am specifically speaking of the many private lands that are now closed to hunting that could be opened up since a private land owner now has an incentive to allow hunting on their land.

 

Now there's a real laugh. Private portions of ranches usually contain the ranch house, if there is one. So ranchers are going to start letting us shoot near the house?

 

I favor finding ways to incentivize ranchers to be better stewards of the land for wildlife, but this is idea is ridiculous and suggests that some of our ranchers are not too tightly tethered to reality.

 

Ranchers lease public lands for a single purpose: grazing. Now they think their grazing leases have purchased them the right to sell wildlife. Since when?

 

If anyone finds their proposal logical, try this: We'll all go file mining claims on ranchers' leased land, pay the small fee required to register the mine, scratch around in the dirt occasionally to keep the claim qualified as active, and then if the rancher wants to build a road, tank or fence, he can pay us for the right to do it! After all, if we've paid for the right to mine, why can't we have the right to sell other rights?

 

With respect to the logic employed, how's that any different from what these ranchers are proposing?

 

I don't mean to paint all ranchers with the same brush, but some are dumber than their cattle.

 

Ranchers lease public land with the understanding there will be wildlife on it and the public will come there to hunt. If they can't accept that, they shouldn't lease public land in the West. They should move to Iowa and buy a farm.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Rembrant]

? 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 2,000 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.

 

 

Diamondbackaz,

Leased lands cannot be counted towards the 2000 acres of land required for participation, BUT they CAN be included in the WMP.

I just paraphrased this so that the second sentence is first and the first sentence is last. Does this help?

What it means is this: if a rancher has at least 2000 privately owned acres within his 2 million acre lease, this proposal will allow him to obtain all the big game deer, elk, antelope, sheep, turkey, and javilina tags for this 2 million and 2 thousand acre area - sell them to the highest bidder, and legally deny anyone else to hunt there.

 

The other part of the proposal about access sounds good but means nothing.

If you didn't pay the ransom to the rancher for a deer tag, then you do not have legal access to that area in deer season and quite possibly any other time.

Heck, this proposal hasn't even hit the state capital yet and for years ranchers have been denying access to public lands simply because the road goes through their small piece of property.

 

And it gets worse. The proposed committee that decides if a rancher gets a WMP is comprised of: 2 Az Game and Fish personnel, 2 U of A Extension Service personnel, and 2 RANCHERS!! And a majority vote wins!

To terminate a ranchers WMP, the proposed committee, gets watered down even further, and will be comprised of:

2 Az G&F personnel, 2 Uof A Extension Service personnel, 2 State Land personnel, and 2 RANCHERS!! And a majority vote rules!!!!!

 

To all you people that complain that the Game Dept is only concerned about money - YOU AIN"T SEEN NOTHING YET!! What do you think the ranchers want?

 

It has always been my opinion that the Arizona Game and Fish Dept. has done an outstanding job of wildlife management and law enforcement - on a budget. The over population in this state has forced wildlife management that is 'cutting edge' and decades ahead of the other western states. As other states grow in population, they use the Arizona permit/draw system as a model - something that our Game Dept has been using for over 30 years to insure quality hunting for our residents AND others.

Why in the world would we allow this proven Game Dept that has soundly managed our wildlife to be reduced to a mere voice on a committee - for the benifit of RANCHERS???!!!

And there's more - read the proposal.

Mike

[Rembrant]

Audsly,

Good Points. Thank you for your input.

Mike

[ultramag]

i think this bill is totaly bs.These ranchers are probly the same ones who lock there gates for hunting season and then bitch about all the elk they have.they all ready have permits for there land, the game and fish gives them every year.All they have to do is charge a little for trespass fees.THE PERMITS ARE ALREADY THERE.they just want more money,more control.Now outfitters can have all the control over "public land"thats where this is going.The game and fish are supposed to be providing resident hunting opportunity .they should insted call it more business opportunity.

[Diamondbackaz]

Audsly and Rembrandt, I went back and highlighted and enlarged my statement regarding public lands and private WMP for those of you who missed it. There exists large tracks of private land currently closed to hunting. An example of this is the Baca grant in 18B, which as far as I know, it is still closed to hunting. I believe that this chunk of land is 100,000 acres. If a rancher could open this up to hunting, it increases hunting opportunities in the state.

[ultramag]

the boca float ranch in 18b is probably a good example.If you consider 3000-6000 dollars for a hunt there more hunting opportunities your crazy.how about more opportunities for the rich man, not the average hunter. I can see your point. but i can see beyond that.If you take the money aspect out of it, i think it would be a great thing.

[Rembrant]

Diamondbackaz.

Good job. Excellent example!

The Louis Maria Baca Grant is a prime example of a large piece of private land, that is NOT intermixed with public lands, that has been closed to public access and hunting since I can remember. And I don't think it's the only Baca grant in the state.

I would agree with you that this would be a good situation for a wildlife Management Plan (WMP).

Only problem is, the person who is in charge of managing this grant is some kind of inviromentalist lady who is strictly against hunting, and as a result has mismanaged (not managed at all) the wildlife to the point that the lions and drought have decimated that once fabulous mule deer herd. The surrounding units' deer herds used to benifit greatly from that "Sanctuary", but now it's gone down hill.

Again, I agree. That would be wonderful. BUT, the proposal is called, "RANCHING FOR WILDLIFE". It is designed and proposed by ranchers. If the ranches in this state all looked like the Baca Grants, large tracts of private land without the leasing of public lands, then this idea would have some merit. But to allow ranches to take this kind of control of the public land leases will only benifit the ranchers and screw the public.

'Ranching for Wildlife' may actually be a good thing in other states that have giant private ranches. Arizona does not! The largest ranch in the state, the one that has the most private land is the Boquillas Ranch in unit 10. In fact, it may be the largest ranch in the nation.

Would the "Ranching for Wildlife" work here? The owners (the Navajo Nation) say, "yes". I say, "NO WAY!!" Why? because the ranch is checkerboarded with state land. So is every other ranch in the state. Most of the ranches in Arizona have very little private land (usually just the land where the house and barn is), the majority of ranch land is leased - from us - residence of Arizona.

Come to think of it, the Louis Maria Baca Grant people don't need this proposal either. They can work under the current system and charge people access fees, that is, if they wanted hunting on the grant - but they don't. And that's OK because they own the land. The ranchers in this state do not! We do.

The Arizona Game and Fish Dept should always have complete control of the state's wildlife management and especially the big game hunting permits.

Otherwise the system will be corrupted by selfish monitary gain.

Mike