This from the Billings Gazette.



This -- dated July 15, 2004 and addressed to Duane Shroufe, Director Arizona Game & Fish Department -- from the Arizona Cattleman's Association. -TONY







"Dear Mr. Shroufe:



My clents have developed an impression that the Arizona Game & Fish Department is not receptive or sensitive to concerns relating to property damage caused by wildlife and/or inconsiderate hunters. After much thought and discussion, the following ranches have, or are seriously considering, denying any and all public access for any purpose on their private land:



Aztec Land and Cattle Comapny



Becker Land and Cattle Company



LO Ranch



7-Up Ranch



Goldtrap Ranch



Willaha Ranch



McCauley Ranch



X-one Ranch



Rock Art Ranch



Aja Sheep Company



Freeman Ranch



Carlock Ranch



Diamond A's (Cholla Livestock)



K-4 Ranch



Las Vegas Ranch



Dobson and Dobson Livestock Company



Dobson Estate



Vernon 825, LLC



Sheep Springs Sheep Company, LLC



Timberline Cattle Company



Wagon Bow Ranch



Lazy YE



Red Wing Ranch



Cowan Ranch



Yolo Ranch



ORO Ranch



Seibert Cattle Company



As you are aware, these ranches control access to large parcels of privately owned real property and/or access to large parcels of public property in bothe northern and southern Arizona.Hunters currently enjoy free and unfettered use of many of these private parcels. The current mismanagement of wildlife has caused a detrimental impact on the ability of these ranchers to maintain viable cattle operations. Thus far, management of wildlife has been one =sided. Hunters and the AG&FD enjoy the benefit of water, range and access improvements maintained at the sole expense of these ranchers. The ranchers are recieving little or nothing in return Their only recourse at this point is to deny any type of access.



In the event your department is interested in discussing a fair resolution of ongoing concerns relating to ranching and wildlife management, please have your legal counsel contact this office. Otherwise the above- referenced ranches will be closed to public access. Moreover, we will continue to seek every available remedy, including political, public and legal alternatives, to force your department to recognize the significant economic loss the mismangament of wildlife is causing to my clients.



Thank you for your prompt attention in this regard." < !--color-->

Well, I guess it's a good thing that Mr. Zumbo does not plan on hunting in AZ afterall. He may have gotten there only to find that he couldn't hunt.

Like I said in the beginning...this will cascade into a big big mess with plenty of ill will.

PETA will sit back and watch the frolly in laughter I'm sure.

Desertram
Spot on...follow the money < !--color-->

Maybe they are pissed that they are footing the bill for the elk herds, so that out of state hunters could get the tags.

Rouge6
Ranchers get more $$$ from non resident hunters
than they do from resident hunters.Either directly or through leasing the land to outfitters.

Thats one of the reasons resident hunters are pissed.They are use to access without having to pay for it.Non resident
hunters drive the price up.

Face it,an increase in demand and a finite resource =
higher prices...FOR ALL.

JeffP,
Ranchers that lease to outfits like USO get more money from out of staters. Ranches that charge access fees or let anyone on, (yes in alot of the west this still happens) usually hunt themselves and dont really care about big out of state money. Shot cattle, torn up field, cut fences, torn up water holes by 4x4's, trespassers, burned down barns, state police showing up because of poaching on property all can and do cost a honest landowner more money than a reasonable access fee. The ranches that are leased out have been closed to public hunting for years. Nothing new here.
Resident hunters (non-ranch owning types) like myself stay away from almost any privately owned land because of all the yahoo running around. Public land boardering private land tends to get hunted hard. In the high country you tend to get the more serious hunter. Less likely to get shot, and alot smaller crowd. And all you out of staters get to hunt the same places I do without any charge.

All those listed ranches would not be joining the boycott if their major source of income came from USO or the like. They are probably mostly ranches and outdoorsmen love the same sport we do.

I completely mis-understood what they where wanting. Thats really to bad. I've seen some really bad abuses of landowner permits. I've even turned some in to game wardens. I do understand where the ranchers are coming from when they spend alot of dollars growing the herds by watering and feeding them. They should be allowed a few damage permits if they allow regular tag holders access to STATE OWNED GAME. Then throw them a couple tags. I know the F&G managers here are cutting back on permits unless access is allowed to existing tag holders first. But that would be the right thing to do.

I thought so. That's why I wanted to clarify it.



Reason I know a bit more now is that I made a couple calls this morning to G&F folks. And to the man, they realized no one needs to be a rocket scientist to see where the ranchers are heading.



While throwing them a few tags seems reasonable, it has lots and lots of downsides. First, those same tags will be ones now available thru the public drawing for the cost of a license and the current tag fee.



Once the ranchers get hold of them, the price will mirror those in NM -- perhaps well beyond the means of the average hunter. And more than likely, they won't even be available to the average hunter because outfitters like USO will offer the ranchers a deal for every permit they have. So now, tack on the cost of a guided hunt, which will bring PREMIUM dollars in many of the AZ units.



Lastly, the reason we have a permit lottery now is to protect a finite resource. The game deparment bases the permit quotas on the usual biological considerations of population, cow/calf ratios, harvest, natural mortality, etc.



So lets say they determine a specific unit can sustain a harvest of 50 elk, and the overall hunt success on average over previous seasons has been 25%. That translates to an allocation of 200 permits to achieve the desired harvest.



Now consider the ranches within that unit will receive 50 permits as part of their allocation, perhaps based on some criteria such as size, etc. The end result is only 150 permits for the general draw for BOTH NRs and residents alike.



I would much prefer the game department initiate a formula to actually PAY the ranchers in lieu of providing permits. But of course, the landowners will have to provide reasonable proof that a payment is warranted.



AND then...the state can retaliate somewhat by charging more money for livestock leases on State Trust land. And maybe we can even get the Feds to either raise or cancel the leases on the national forests, which are ludicrously cheap anyway. -TONY

Hot Damn! Finally on the horizon. Landowner tags in Arizona. It's about time. No longer a need to mess with the draw. I wonder what an elk tag will go for. Lets start the bidding at $15,000 each. Yeeeeeeeeee Haaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwww

Texas IS awesome!!!

If I owned a ranch in AZ, you can bet my name would be on that list too!

After all, those ranchers are feeding all the "state owned" wildlife......I think they deserve to get something back to cover at least part of the expense.......every mouthful of grass the elk eat is one less mouthful for the cows......since most ranch owners depend on livestock production for their income, it's easy to see that each and every elk and deer on their ranch is costing them money!

I think it's only fair for the state to pay for the grass their animals are eating........just like I think it's fair for ranchers to pay the commercial value of grazing on public land........

Yeah, but ranchers pay a fraction of what the land is really worth, we all know that. It costs the gubment something like $500 million to administer grazing leases in the west, while those same leases make something on the order of $9 million (don't quote those numbers, they're from an article in the local paper here, but you get the idea). Do the math, that's not fair market in any way shape or form. Besides, all the grass that's getting eaten that you're so concerned about is mostly on public land, the very land that you're up in arms to get access to, er hunt big game on. You should protest this as much as we do. In fact, you should want the cattle off so there's more grass for elk on public land so you can have a better chance at getting one of those tags that AZ residents won't be getting now. So really, those "poor" ranchers are feeding the state's grass to the state's wildlife, and then they bitch because they get to run a few less cattle on YOUR land for a mere pittance. The only time the state should even get involved in depredation (i.e. payment, etc.) is when it occurs on private land and all other options (controlled hunts, etc.) have been exhausted.

And as far as them blocking access to public ground, I think that's a bunch of bullshit anyway and should be flat out illegal. Even if it means a dude from Oklahoma gets to hunt that public land

Well, here goes my first post...

I own land that borders National Forest - I paid a premium for it. Why should I have to allow anyone to trample across my land?

The guys complaining the most probably have no shortage of quads, boats and other toys. Why not buy some land with national forest access?

The ranchers in question are blocking access to the land they own - BLM land, if leased, is open to everyone, and don't let a rancher tell you otherwise.

Well yeah, maybe good ideas, but we both know who winds up paying in the long run. It's bad enough that decent beef steaks here are now more than $5 a pound, and I would sure hate to pay $3 for a head of lettuce. -TONY

DR



I'm on your side on this one!



I think ranchers should pay the real value for grazing their cattle on public land, that's why my post said "just like I think it's fair for ranchers to pay the commercial value of grazing on public land........" In fact, maybe we should just remove all cattle from public land, period?



By the same token, I don't think it's right for a rancher to support elk and deer all year and then not be able to hunt them on his own property without drawing a tag! I don't see any harm in issuing a limited number of landowner tags to the folks that are feeding state owned wildlife all year long at their expense! If there aren't enough elk and deer to allow that, then maybe there aren't enough to allow any hunting at all??



As far as blocking access to public land.......I think that should be illegal too! That doesn't mean I think people should be able to cross private land anywhere they choose, I think there should be access corridors that can't be blocked......



Some of the people on the board have obviously taken what I posted wrong......I'm not the "greedy non-resident hunter".......I have never, and have no plans to ever apply for an elk or deer tag in any western state......I'd rather spend my money going to Africa than to pay an outfitter big bucks to hunt a single elk or deer. I just don't think it's fair to discriminate against non-residents who want to hunt federal land.....and, despite all the rhetoric to the contrary, capping non-resident tags is, by definition, discrimination....



If someone doesn't agree with me on that point.....well, that is their right.......however, if I push the issue and let the law decide who is right.....that doesn't necessarily make me the bad guy either.....

This is a case of wanting it all. All the subsidized grazing, without supervision, plus all the hunting access to the grazing leases, as well as to the private lands.

Unless you've kicked up some dust around the West, you don't realize that these tags are about hunting on PUBLIC land. The landowners only own a fraction of the land, in the valleys, but they control huge tracts of grazing leases, all the way to the tops of the mountains They want full control of public land.

Not only control all the grazing and all the hunting on their private ground, they want all the grazing and hunting on public land, too.

I would love to see landowner tags, if they came with TWO stipulations:

* They have to be used on OWNED PROPERTY;
* The landowner that accepts tags cannot restrict access to hunters / recreationists to any public land they graze.

Neither are onerous restrictions, but they would expose the real drive behind this issue, right quick. We'd get the stories about how they "feed the elk", but it is already established in the jurisprudence (for example in Montana) that wildlife is something that is a landowner must expect and respect. In other words, if you own land, you will have birds nesting in your trees, rabbits in your slash piles, geese in your ponds, and deer in your fields. Having wildlife around is not a burden a landowner gets credit for or should expect payment for. What's next, a "landowner tag" for Christmas tree farmers? After all, all those birds need fed....

To me, the whole issue is just another attempt to establish an entitlement. Just as bad as the ghetto-mom cranking out another baby so her welfare goes up. Dutch.

GH and Dutch, I'm with you nearly 100%.

One thing though GH, I'd have no real heartache with a rancher, who is suffering significant losses on his PRIVATE land, getting a tag from the state to pop an elk or two for his freezer. That seems like a fair trade to me. But what these guys want is a mess of landowner tags, that are valid on their PRIVATE land and our PUBLIC land, that they then sell to a rich Texan, Oklahoman, or USO for way more than the average Joe can afford. And as Tony has said before, these are then tags that are not available in the general draw for a resident or non-resident. We (the public hunter guy) get screwed while the landowner (who really owns just a bit of land with a bunch of public leases) makes a pile of cash. That's where I have a problem, not with the guy who wants a bit of venison in exchange for the grass eaten by wildlife.

If the rancher doesn't own the land, then he should have no more right to hunt it than anyone else......however, if he owns the land.......I think he should get a limited number of tags for use on HIS land only.....not leased land, not public land, but land that he owns outright.......this is done in many states and the number of permits issued is based on how many acres he owns (not leases)......and I don't believe it should be based on depredation......there is bound to be a fair compromise, whether it's one tag for every 1000 acreas or 1 tag for every 5000 acres or whatever......it shouldn't be too difficult to figure out a formula that is fair to both sides.......and, I think the landowner should be able to do with the tags as he wishes......if he wants to use them or give them to family and friends .....fine......if he wants to sell them to some rich guy, that is fine too......the end result for the wildlife is the same......



I think you might want to be careful about the "rich guy" comments......a lot of people consider you the "rich guy"....after all, you went all the way to Africa and hunted!



I see the landowner situation in the west a bit like the wildlife situation in Africa........when there is nothing in it for Africans, wildlife suffers, and poaching and habitat destruction abounds.......when wildlife becomes valuable, it is protected and nurtured and everybody wins! If a landowner sees elk and deer as a liability and a drain on his income without any positive side to offset the negative.......why would he do anything to benefit and protect them?

Riddle me this, how is it that average hunters on a huge percentage of public lands can go for years at a time without even SEEING anything that constitutes a trophy, and yet these poor neglected ranchers can GARANTEE trophy hunts?? (thats not a typo either, its a plural!) Anyone who doesnt believe that can come to Utah and find out. They print their garanteed trophy adds right in the @$*^%&*(@! proclimation and I can testify as to the other aspect.



If I had control of this aspect, these ranchers would be told, either open your land to the general public for hunting or close it to all hunting and legally post it as such, plain and simple. And when they get overrun with game they can apply for depredation hunts to be issued BY THE STATE with landowners requests for care of their land duly noted and expressed to the permit recipients..



When the process of handing out two of these for Billy Bob and three of the others for Joe Blow starts, in time its going to snowball into a three headed monster, reguardless of how good the original intentions were..



If they dont want to give up "X" amount of grass for a few deer then 1) I feel sorry for them for having such a shitty outlook on wildlife and 2) they are free to place higher fences..

Western hunter, the answer is simple, they truck them in (if you are thinking of the same "ranches" I am thinking of). They aren't game, they are livestock.

In general, most ranchers are our friends. If I were pressed for a guess, I would say at least half the elk in the West spend some time on private ground. Usually the winter. Although, I know of a herd that just came out of the mountains, and is finishing the summer in an alfalfa field. Depredation hunts start Aug. 30, so this particular rancher will have significant depredation unless something is done before.

However, you can't be a rancher and ONLY look at the amount the elk (deer, whatever) eat. Normal wildlife foraging is part of doing business. You can't just buy a piece of land and fence out the elk, when it's across a migration corridor, for example. That leaves "abnormal" situations where one guy has a field that gets eaten up. $4.00 or less AUM grazing leases offset a lot of excesses, IMO. It's hard to complain about 30 elk on your hay ground for a month, when you have 200 cow/calf pairs up on the Forest Service at welfare rates from the end of May through the middle of September. JMO, Dutch.

Kinda off subject but let us not despair the fate of the "poor rancher". If we were to list all the government handouts to these "poor" it would take more ink and paper than could be produced. Trust me our government has paid for the "poor ranchers" land many times over thru all the multitude of handouts. I live amongst them and they have learned every trick in the book to access their congressional delegations. My bet is with the ranchers in AZ getting everything they want and then some.

Some really interesting takes on the 'damage' Elk and Deer do to ranches. My family have a couple of ranches in BC and Eastern Oregon. The damage by Elk is not in the browse they eat or the water they drink in the Spring, Summer or Fall, but in the damage they cause in the Winter.

Cattle have to be fed and watered throughout the Winter in temperatures that keep 95% of normal people inside by the fire. Cows, like people, need a lot more fuel then to keep warm. Elk come out of the Blues by the hundreds to winter on the same land, private land, that the cows are on. They are much more agressive and push the cattle off of the feed, tear down the hay stacks, push the cows off the water troughs (the ones that have to be opened up every morning with an ax by someone), knock down fences etc. etc.

In return for putting up with this Ranchers are given Land Owner permits. I don't know the formula but I do know that it tops out at around 6-7 regardless of the amount of property. Eastern Oregon is on a draw basis for Elk and Deer and to ask someone to put up with the damage done by the animals and not be able to hunt their own property is a bit much.

My uncle has 60,000 deeded acres. It was open to permission only hunting until about 5 years ago when some yahoos from who knows where (assumed Portland ) shot 4 cows. He had also allowed access to hunters who had drawn tags to cross his property on a couple of roads to hunt on the National Forest property behind him. Because of this incident, plus gates left open or shut that should have been open it all ceased.

None of the permits he gets are sold as they all go to him, his children and grandchildren. There are not enough to go around so I can' even talk him out of one.