Changes

[stillatmaxpoints]

Most of the dirt stock tanks that are built by ranchers in Arizona are actually private party improvements, if there were built by the ranch, be it new stock tanks (or ponds as some people call them)or ones built 50 + years ago, the are private property of the ranch or ranchers, on state trust lands and federal lands the water itself may be owned by the state or Feds, but the actual improvement built to hold the water is private property.

[Explorer]

25 minutes ago, stillatmaxpoints said:

Most of the dirt stock tanks that are built by ranchers in Arizona are actually private party improvements, if there were built by the ranch, be it new stock tanks (or ponds as some people call them)or ones built 50 + years ago, the are private property of the ranch or ranchers, on state trust lands and federal lands the water itself may be owned by the state or Feds, but the actual improvement built to hold the water is private property.

Ranchers are allowed to build structures and improvements on public land to accomodate livestock. But they are not private property. They can own non permanent items such as troughs and windmills and fencing but a dirt tank or even the dirt one inch away from a metal or concrete trough is public land. They cant say shoot unless you molest the actual structure.

[stillatmaxpoints]

Most of the dirt stock tanks that are built by ranchers in Arizona are actually private party improvements, if there were built by the ranch, be it new stock tanks (or ponds as some people call them)or ones built 50 + years ago, the are private property of the ranch or ranchers, on state trust lands and federal lands the water itself may be owned by the state or Feds, but the actual improvement built to hold the water is private property.

Explorer, you are incorrect on your conception of ownership of the stock tank ownership

 

 

 

 

[stillatmaxpoints]

ON arizona state trust lands the rancher does own the stock tank structure. You can do some research and find that to be fact. On federal lands the same thing applies. A southwest retired regional forest supervisor verified that to me a couple of years ago 

[TOBY]

ON X shows land ownership. Every water source improvement has a square around it and ownership from said ranch. At least the 3 gm units around home.

[trphyhntr]

When the government keeps restricting the ways I’m allowed to hunt... 

[stanley]

1 hour ago, stillatmaxpoints said:

Most of the dirt stock tanks that are built by ranchers in Arizona are actually private party improvements, if there were built by the ranch, be it new stock tanks (or ponds as some people call them)or ones built 50 + years ago, the are private property of the ranch or ranchers, on state trust lands and federal lands the water itself may be owned by the state or Feds, but the actual improvement built to hold the water is private property.

Explorer, you are incorrect on your conception of ownership of the stock tank ownership

 

 

 

 

For me, practically speaking, there is just no way this bill will pass for public lands (state trust, BLM, FS).  Whether the rancher has ownership rights to the actual water hole or not is irrelevant when it comes to 'setting up a blind' within 100 yards of said water hole.  All of this is just hype and chatter surrounding a poorly written bill, IMO.   Sometimes our law makers don't appear to be the sharpest folks out there, but come on.  NO WAY will this will happen on public land.

S.

[Pine Donkey]

This is not about sitting water, game cameras or even ranchers.  This is just another step in a well planned anti hunting agenda of divide and conquer.  Remember the elimination of bear baiting, leghold traps, hunting over feed?  This is just another step, and there are more to come.  In addition to these, watch out for bills on: lion hunting, bear hunting, magazine size, distance limitations, electronics, optics and the list goes on.

Hunters need to support all legal hunting rather that allowing it to be taken away because it is not “your” type of hunting.

[stanley]

Point taken, Pine Donkey. 

I don't think it's these poorly written 'sweeping' bills that we need to worry about because they get so much hype that they will never pass.  I'm more worried about the small (sometimes seemingly innocuous) changes that get passed little by little, that over time collectively make a significant impact in the long-run.

S.

[Outdoor Writer]

57 minutes ago, Pine Donkey said:

This is not about sitting water, game cameras or even ranchers.  This is just another step in a well planned anti hunting agenda of divide and conquer.  Remember the elimination of bear baiting, leghold traps, hunting over feed?  This is just another step, and there are more to come.  In addition to these, watch out for bills on: lion hunting, bear hunting, magazine size, distance limitations, electronics, optics and the list goes on.

Hunters need to support all legal hunting rather that allowing it to be taken away because it is not “your” type of hunting.

The removal of bear baiting was a very smart move by AGFD. I know for FACT why it was done, and if it hadn't been done as preemptive rule, it's likely there would be NO spring bear hunting as happened in Colorado via a voter proposition. 

[Outdoor Writer]

47 minutes ago, stanley said:

 I'm more worried about the small (sometimes seemingly innocuous) changes that get passed little by little, that over time collectively make a significant impact in the long-run.

S.

In many cases, the small changes by the AGFD are benefits because they are preemptive strikes to avoid much greater impact from voter-approved propositions that are virtually impossible to reverse and usually throw out the baby with the bathwater. See my other reply about bear baiting. 

[stillatmaxpoints]

There are some good points in the two bills. From a business point of view from a rancher not having someone setting right on your stock tank is a good thing, cattle will not come to water as easily as they normally do, some distance would be a good thing.

Having a trail camera season is a good thing, Nevada did that very thing, that way use of trail cameras was not outlawed completely, a season would bring back some meaning to the fair chase concept, which is no longer in effect on the Arizona strip, where there are thousands of trail cameras out there year round, the really big bucks don't have much of a chance there, other units are getting to be the same way, especially in units with very little natural live waters in them

[trphyhntr]

 

31 minutes ago, stillatmaxpoints said:

There are some good points in the two bills. From a business point of view from a rancher not having someone setting right on your stock tank is a good thing, cattle will not come to water as easily as they normally do, some distance would be a good thing.

Having a trail camera season is a good thing, Nevada did that very thing, that way use of trail cameras was not outlawed completely, a season would bring back some meaning to the fair chase concept, which is no longer in effect on the Arizona strip, where there are thousands of trail cameras out there year round, the really big bucks don't have much of a chance there, other units are getting to be the same way, especially in units with very little natural live waters in them

Ban hunting all together. 

[Explorer]

Ranchers do not own every water source they build on public land. They have a lease that is renewed yearly. Nothing on my onx shows any tanks on public land marked as owned by any John Wayne unless it is actually a private parcel. Which do exist in a few places. They can claim ownership on a state land tank. But not every tank on public land as you claim . And if im wrong show proof. 

[stillatmaxpoints]

Obviously you know little about how grazing leases are administered both on state and federal lands, such as state trust lands they are for 10 years not yearly.