While it may seem like a solution, having sportsmen purchasing the AUMs would need to be done with eyes wide open, knowing the BLM or Forest Service system, the live stock system, and the legal system, inside and out, before attempting to solve the problem that way.
It is my understanding, although I could be incorrect, SFW purchased a fairly large group of cattle AUMs, that were offered for sale by a live stock grazer, on the Henry Mountain Unit. SFW was hoping to "retire" the AUMs and open up more opportunity to increase the number of buffalo on the unit. After the purchase was made, they were informed, by the BLM, I suppose, that they could not increase the number of buffalo, and if SFW was not going to graze cattle on their newly purchased AUMs the BLM would withdraw SFW's AUMs (in other words declare them nul and void) and sell new ones, to someone that would use them to grazing cattle.
This was done a number of years ago, again, I'm not sure but I believe SFW still owns the AUM but subleases them to a live stock operator, who uses them to graze cattle. And approved buffalo numbers have remained as they were prior to the SFW purchase.
Now........a year ago I asked a Henry's cattle grazer how many AUMs his operation owned. He said, "over 1,500, but we only put about 700/800 head of cows and calfs on the lease, because we don't want to over graze it. So........ we could put out another 600 or 700, if we wanted to. but we don't.
That was interesting to me. SFW can't send out Zero cattle, but a different AUM owner can send out "less" AUMs than he's licensed to graze.
So...............grazing less cattle/sheep is okay with the BLM/USFS but not grazing Zero cattle is not. Any sportsmen groups that purchase AUMs, with the intent of "helping elk or other big game" better present themselves, first as live stockmen, purchasing AUMs to graze livestock, then put "some" livestock, under their business name, and keep their mouth shut about what or why they are doing it.
Then make sure they get appointed to State boards, as live stock operators, not as sportsmen, then "lean" toward more elk or other big game, as live stock operators, when these issues of the numbers of elk come up, in any State meeting, be it a meeting with the Farm Bureau, the Legislature, the Feds or the Wildlife Board/DWR.
RMEF, SFW, MDF etc, can't do it. Here is the only way it can be done, in my opinion, and I think it needs to be done. I'd be willing to invest in it myself.
A group of sportsmen need to start a new company, something like a: "Big Valley Livestock Company" with real live stock, owned and operated by bragabit, elk_guy and dillon and 50 other sportsmen investors. (who just happen to like to hunt elk as a sport but run cattle as a business) If it's a legitimate livestock business I don't believe the BLM or USFS would have a leg to stand on if you decide to graze half as many cows as your AUM allows you to graze, and I don't think they could do a thing if you didn't contest conservation groups that lobby for and tolerate an increased in the number of elk and other big game.
At the present time, the Feds, ie: the BLM and USFS are not going to tolerate removing live stock grazing from public lands, whether you buy every AUM on the mountain or not. They'll simply just re-issue new ones, based on the fact that these are their lands to manage and right now they want live stock on them. (I have no problem with cattle and sheep on the mountains, these are multiple use lands, that includes live stock use. However, I do believe big game animals and hunters have a legitimate claim on an equitable share of the feed and the use of these lands, as part of the multiple use plan, as it was designed in the beginning.)
DC
