Can you actually still hunt unit 32? And a AZGFD mini-rant.

[couesmagnet]

The problem with the guides paying ranchers to shut down their lands for the use of the guide only is that it hurts us all in the long run. While the guide enjoys hunting the now much less wary animals and looking like some kind of superstar in his new self created "zoo" , the public has now lost an opp. to hunt the ranchers property for ever. Once the strings of greed have been plucked there's no going back most likely. If the ranch is already locked up for what ever reason this doesn't apply, but if an outfitter approaches a landowner and talks him into it, that's when we all as hunters get hurt, and all just for the sake of one guys"{the guides} ego. I would hope when the public hears of or finds out that a rancher has been talked into closing his gates by one of these super selfish ego driven guides these days who by doing this are admitting to us and themselves that they actually don't know how to hunt public lands and have to create some kinda little mexico in arizona so they can actually kill a few good bucks. This boils down to whats good for one person or a few or what should be done or not be done for the sport of hunting as a whole. This isn't a question of fair or not fair, but a question of should it be done or shouldn't it be done for the future of the sport itself. I personally would never hire a guide who does this with ranchers, or at least tries to talk ranchers with open gates into locking them. It's def a sign of someone with a lack of the ability to look forward for the sport, and the most obvious sign of all, he's def ego driven and selfish at best. The sport is going to the few in a hurry, throw in all the dog and pony shows be perpetuated on us all or at least the ones who aren't in the "know", then mix in tons of smoke and mirrors, and you have what huntings become over the last 10 years. Just imagine what it will be in another 10. Just cause it can be done doesn't mean it should be done. I think theirs several guides now that if had the option and there was a button somewhere that could be pushed and if they were the first one to push this button, the guide would be loaded with cash and held up as the best hunter/lecturer/killer of all time that several of them would jump on the button yesterday even if it meant hunting was adversely affected from that point on. Go with someone who doesn't need to shut down private stuff for their own ego, go with someone who shows they can look into the future and not just their own pocket, and last but not least go with someone who considered you the average hunter in this thought process cause by not making the call to the rancher he did us all a favor including the guides future kids or grandkids who may hunt someday. Smoke and mirrors, dogs and ponies, and egos equal catastrophic results for future generations.

[Guest 300ultramag.]

In our capitalist society it is not against the law for someone to pay someone else for the use of property. We are spoiled in Az because we have so much public property. When I lived in Iowa we had to ask the farmer to hunt his land. Many said no and then let their friends hunt. Look at all of the pay to hunt places in S. Dakota. The problem in AZ is the roads that lead to the public lands were built by the ranchers and go thru their private property. Even if they only own 1 acre and the road goes thru which is usually the case the courts have said they have the right to close that road. So, the solution is to build a road around the private property. It takes millions of $ to build roads these days. The G&F doesn't have the money. The Land Owners Relations Dept of the G&F have opened roads if they can prove in court that the road was a public road. Also they work on agreements with the land owners to allow access, with certain rules such as sign in sign out, fixing fences, providing signs, etc. But, it takes a lot of work. The Fed. State government could spend your money but the public has no will to be taxed more so you can go hunting. And also increased access would let everyone in and you know what happens then. Almost any solution that you can come up with with costs money. When you add it all up then maybe $100 is not so much. Maybe hard to swallow but with so many more people wanting access this is the way its going to be.

 

 

 

The G&F doesnt have the money? hmmmmm Yes they do

[Guest 300ultramag.]

think about it

 

 

The G&F conduct the survey counts on these areas (say 32) that they know hunters can not access a large portion of the unit... however they are issuing tags based on these total numbers gathered;non accessible areas included which are superfical because mr. average joe hunter cant get to the said areas...

 

essentially they are passing out tags for deer we will never see on our lifetime...

[Str8Shot]

In our capitalist society it is not against the law for someone to pay someone else for the use of property. We are spoiled in Az because we have so much public property. When I lived in Iowa we had to ask the farmer to hunt his land. Many said no and then let their friends hunt. Look at all of the pay to hunt places in S. Dakota. The problem in AZ is the roads that lead to the public lands were built by the ranchers and go thru their private property. Even if they only own 1 acre and the road goes thru which is usually the case the courts have said they have the right to close that road. So, the solution is to build a road around the private property. It takes millions of $ to build roads these days. The G&F doesn't have the money. The Land Owners Relations Dept of the G&F have opened roads if they can prove in court that the road was a public road. Also they work on agreements with the land owners to allow access, with certain rules such as sign in sign out, fixing fences, providing signs, etc. But, it takes a lot of work. The Fed. State government could spend your money but the public has no will to be taxed more so you can go hunting. And also increased access would let everyone in and you know what happens then. Almost any solution that you can come up with with costs money. When you add it all up then maybe $100 is not so much. Maybe hard to swallow but with so many more people wanting access this is the way its going to be.

Thomc Most the roads that lead to public lands were not built by the ranchers, My family has hunted this state for over 70 years and many of those roads existed long before land was sold off... That does not mean all roads, some have been constructed and maintained by property owners, where others were cut and maintained by tax dollars. I am not taking into account primitive roads that have also existed for decades of use. Fighting for an easement is expensive, there is no doubt about that, but the game and fish does have the type of revenue needed to fight to open up some areas if they really wanted to. Instead they prefer to save the cost , while trying to negotiate with land owners often at the expense of the rest of US hunters. Guides and outfitters paying for while also asking landowners to limit access into public lands does go on and is getting worse, it is in these cases that things need to change. I do not want to hunt a persons 140 acres and if a guide wants to pay for that I see no issue, but I want access to the 1800 acres of our public lands that all are entitled to and that he or she is denying. There are many reasons that lead to lend owners locking gates, in the Mercers case it was public dumping on their land from residents of Mammoth and surrounding areas that they were fined for and forced to pay to clean up. It was not hunters. Someone says you can now pay $100 for access through Mercer's gates, and if that is true then they have raised up the price and changed it, since several years ago they had stopped even paid access. It is my opinion that the public should have access into any public land, that BLM and and G&F have access to and areas including private properties that deny access to us, the ones buying the goods and paying the taxes, should be designated as non hunting areas and the heard size in the areas should not be factored into the number of tags for the unit. Ranchers already reap a great benefit with grazing their herds on all our public lands and the rest of the taxpayers should not be locked out from being able to enjoy what is all of ours.

 

I just hope they get some Traction on the HUNT act and that it starts making the changes needed for all to enjoy what belongs to Us !