. Presentation on the Pilot Big Boquillas Ranch Access Project and Agreement and an updat

[bonuspointjohn]

While everyone was screaming about the baiting issue, another potentially more serious issue was discussed. In a nutshell (I can't find the document on line with AZGFD) The Big Boquillas will have the following for the next two years 1) Access fee for individual hunts of $60.00 per hunter 2) No Access to the ranch until 10 days prior to the hunt. 3) No use of Trail Cams 4) No use of OHV vehicles off roads 5) No Ground blinds 6) No hunting within 100 yards of water. 7) No Tree stands 8)The ranch will only be open from August until late December... after that it will be closed. There will be no shed hunting, no spring hunts, nothing. For those who cannot follow the thread here, this is the first of many ranches to help destroy the North American Model. This agreement has some very devastating potential when every other rancher begins to hold out their hands. From what I have heard this is a done deal.... If I am wrong (won't be the first time) please let me know....BPJ

[Red Rabbit]

I wonder if an email to Gary Hovatter would get confirmation on the details and timing, as he was the presenter.

 

 

7. Presentation on the Pilot Big Boquillas Ranch Access Project and Agreement and an update on the Landowner Compact. Presenter: Gary Hovatter, Deputy Director.

The Department will provide the Commission with a presentation on the Pilot Big Boquillas Ranch Access Project and Agreement including an update on the elements of the Landowner Compact that will be incorporated into the program.

[Non-Typical Solutions]

OUCH BPJ.....that is some pretty devastating info right there.......I hope to hannah that you are wrong on this........

[bonuspointjohn]

This has some good points... as well as some bad ones. I suspect that certain outfitters will be mad as all get out because other ranchers may do the same program. That will take away the semi-private hunts that several outfitters now enjoy when they lease ranches in certain prime units. The shed hunters will be livid because they will no longer be able to get those antler sheds each spring. (which is why some of these issues came up... road destruction, fences cut, ruts in existing roads in wet conditions) It will also place those folks who draw on more equal footing because no one will be able to use all the technology to pinpoint their favorite species. On the down side, including a bunch of friends and family for a hunt would be pretty expensive.... on top of the money for the tag and license. There are figures to back up the claims that this will open more lands for hunting as has happened in other states. Time will tell. I suspect this will be an evolving practice on all fronts. So bottom line is there is good news or bad... or both...all depends on how one looks at it. BPJ

[coueshunter]

John, as has been discussed by various groups, "public access" is a big issue. On the surface it appears that this pilot program will 1. provide public access for a nominal fee 2. satisfy the rancher who is also a large constituent in this issue. As it sits right now, there are large chunks of land leased up by an outfitter that does not allow for any "public access" unless you pay the outfitter fee so it appears "on the surface" that this pilot program may in fact be good news for the average hunter...........Allen...............

[mklong40]

This is a big hit for the likes of varminters. I have a friend who has varmint hunted on this ranch for 40 years. In that time he has known all the ranchers, helped when he could with issues, and became friends with the cattlehands. When I shared this news with him yesterday, he was devastated. He called G&F and they confirmed the report. This person is responsible for getting me into varminting, reloading, understanding everything about my rifles, loads, etc. I feel bad about this has happened due to, mainly, other hunters. He introduced me to the boquillos 5 years ago and since then we have taken 2 trips yearly....all before August.

 

I would have no issue with a small fee for entering the ranch, especially if it went back to the ranch. i have no issues with the blinds water holes, etc. but to close the ranch the entire year outside of the fall hunts hurts. It removes varmint hunting and other camping trips ect through the entire spring and summer.

 

I am no biologists and wont pretend to act like I know how this will affect things but I have to think, without some kind of population control with the coyotes and lions in this area, it will affect the Lope, Deer, and Elk populations on some level. I know, personally, there are tons of yotes in this area.....to the affect the lope groups put on yote shoots yearly.......Hopefully this will be reviewed more closely and maybe with some stricter guidelines, which I support, we will have annual access again the near future. Hope so.

 

Matt

[rthrbhntng]

Just so everyone understands this plan is still evolving. The presentation to the commission was an update of where the plan was as of last Thursday. It has changed since then. There is a provision on the table right now for working with the predator groups for predator hunts throughout the year. It may go away but for now it is in the document. The Dept and the Ranch are still in negotiations on this deal.

There are other ranches that have closed and that were planning on closing or adding restrictions. They are watching this process to see if it is something they can work with to keep there ranches open for hunting.

Steve

[scoutm]

^{I have a huge problem with paying a fee to access public land that was purposely checker boarded with private land. If they infact do that then as owners of the public lands we should be demanding ranchers pay a much higher fees to access and benefit off our public lands.}

[DesertBull]

Tell them to keep their cattle on deeded land and off the checkerboard or pay a small fee per head....say $60.

[Mathews]

So unless you have a tag you cannot access the ranch at all?

[dzell]

Predator hunting should be the first to go let the coyotes eat there calves and stop the annual clean up to for sixty dollars that ought to cover trash pick up as well people behave themselves for the most part out there sounds like a bunch of crap to me

[audsley]

If the ranch owners wanted to, they could charge whatever they wanted and skip any agreement with AGFD. Does anyone know why they aren't doing that? Other ranches do.

 

Is it because Cholla Land & Cattle and the Navajo tribe

 

A. Are basically pure of heart and just want to be good guys

B. Want to keep getting the other perks (road and fence maintenance, water tank cleanouts, erosion control, AGFD's help with acquiring government grants, etc.) that might be withheld if they did this unilaterally and independently like ORO and others?

C. Fear that there could be legal and/or political consequences from reaping profits from so much state trust land (gifting clause)

D. Other

 

Just so everyone knows, currently there are landowners who do not allow hunter access but are nevertheless receiving benefits from funds allocated through the habitat partnership program.

 

Here's another question: Shouldn't there be a clause assuring that all paying recreational users will have full access to all areas of the ranch? What I'm concerned about here is that guides could give tips to the hunt manager in exchange for exclusive access to prime areas, and average hunters would be told they can't camp or hunt near X, Y or Z because it's already too full. Not that anyone would ever do a thing like this, of course, I'm just throwing this out hypothetically.

 

As a long time access activist, I'm watching this one with a mix of hope and anxiety, and pretty heavy on the latter. I expect all the small ranchers in southern Arizona to demand more money for letting people through their gates to the state and federal land beyond. By my calculations, the Boquillas deal will net the ranchers about $150,000 just for the recreation permits alone. That's based on roughly 2,500 big game permits sold for unit 10 in 2011. Once word gets out that G&F is sanctioning a per-head access fee, we can expect the rest of the sharks to come into feed pretty quickly. That will include ranchers who, unlike the ORO and Boquillas, don't really have any private land we want to hunt on, but only have a strip of land that blocks our access to state and federal lands beyond. Many are already receiving thousands of dollars per year just to allow hunters to drive across their property.

 

But don't look for new hunting opportunities on BLM and national forest lands where private ranches currently are blocking your access, and the ranchers have lucrative deals with guides that are netting them big bucks and involve only a small number of hunters, including business and political cronies. Those ranchers are doing fine under the current system. The Boquillas deal won't change that.

[scoutm]

If the ranch owners wanted to, they could charge whatever they wanted and skip any agreement with AGFD. Does anyone know why they aren't doing that? Other ranches do.

 

Is it because Cholla Land & Cattle and the Navajo tribe

 

A. Are basically pure of heart and just want to be good guys

B. Want to keep getting the other perks (road and fence maintenance, water tank cleanouts, erosion AGFD's help with acquiring government grants, etc.) that might be withheld if they did this unilaterally and independently like ORO and others?

C. Fear that there could be legal and/or political consequences from reaping profits from so much state trust land (gifting clause)

D. Other

 

Just so everyone knows, currently there are landowners who do not allow hunter access but are nevertheless receiving benefits from funds allocated through the habitat partnership program.

 

Here's another question: Shouldn't there be a clause assuring that all paying recreational users will have full access to all areas of the ranch? What I'm concerned about here is that guides could give tips to the hunt manager in exchange for exclusive access to prime areas, and average hunters would be told they can't camp or hunt near X, Y or Z because it's already too full. Not that anyone would ever do a thing like this, of course, I'm just throwing this out hypothetically.

 

As a long time access activist, I'm watching this one with a mix of hope and anxiety, and pretty heavy on the latter. I expect all the small ranchers in southern Arizona to demand more money for letting people through their gates to the state and federal land beyond. By my calculations, the Boquillas deal will net the ranchers about $150,000 just for the recreation permits alone. That's based on roughly 2,500 big game permits sold for unit 10 in 2011. Once word gets out that G&F is sanctioning a per-head access fee, we can expect the rest of the sharks to come into feed pretty quickly. That will include ranchers who, unlike the ORO and Boquillas, don't really have any private land we want to hunt on, but only have a strip of land that blocks our access to state and federal lands beyond. Many are already receiving thousands of dollars per year just to allow hunters to drive across their property.

 

But don't look for new hunting opportunities on BLM and national forest lands where private ranches currently are blocking your access, and the ranchers have lucrative deals with guides that are netting them big bucks and involve only a small number of hunters, including business and political cronies. Those ranchers are doing fine under the current system. The Boquillas deal won't change that.

I think your math may be off...I don't know how many premits were issued in unit 10 last year so I will assume that your 2500 is correct. Based on that assumption and my observations that on the hunt I was on the average camp had 5-6 people per tag holder - I'm sure it's less than that for deer and antelope so I'll go with 2.5 per tag holder....that would result in $60 x 2500 tags x 2.5 = $375,000 in new revenue - that's a good amount for road repair, fence mending and trash collection...in these tough times I'd like additional revenue like that.

[audsley]

No question my estimate is extremely conservative, but I doubt you will see 5 or 6 people per tag holder if each of the "helpers" now has to pay $60 apiece. But you're right to point out that some will. How many is extremely speculative.

[jnobleinaz]

i guess the "helpers" will have to decide if they want to drop $60 on top of their gas bills to go help out their buddies. What sucks is they should have a daily rate because sometimes family members like to come up and visit. This should not cost $60 for a couple days. When guys that pay the same would be there for 10-14 days.