land owner tags

[bearman]

I want to know what the people on here think of us giving elk, deer and antelope tags away. Nevada is open range state and if you don't want livestock on your property you have to fence them out but if you have a ranch NDOW gives you tags if wildlife gets on your land. All the people I talk to disagree with land owner tags.

 

[idhunters]

What is their disagreement?

If the wildlife is owned by the state and are utilizing private feed resources, shouldn't the owner be compensated? Or allowed to remove the animals?

Personally, I would rather see landowner tags given away then the state paying compensation or allowing the slaughter of the wildlife.

Also, if I owned a significant amount of real estate that supported game animals, I would damn sure want a tag to hunt.

In Idaho, we have many open hunts but if your property is in a "draw" unit you can put in for special permits and have better odds with the landowner tag. You must allow reasonable access to your land for other hunters.

Sounds reasonable to me.

 

[bearman]

LAST EDITED ON Sep-06-08 AT 03:41PM (MST)[p]The argument I hear is if they do not want wildlife on there land they can fence them out. And for the killing them for being on there land they could then go to prison for a felony. Here is peoples concern if cattle get on your property and destroy your lawn, garden, flowers, extra it is your problem to fence them out, you are not entitled to cows or get to kill them. All the people that I have talked to are hunters and no not ranchers they would disagree 100 %. So for the only people I see for the tags are guides and ranchers.

 

[jims]

I believe ranchers should be compensated for wildlife on their land. Here in Colo landowner tags have become a pretty controvercial subject. A larger and larger chunk of limited tags have been taken away from the draw and forked out to landowners, outfitters, and guides. Landowner tags were sold at a premium price and many of the hunters were using these tags to hunt public land. You would think landowner tags would be used by family and friends to harvest animals on their own land? In fact, many of the outfitters were selling landowner tags and the landowner that got the tag wouldn't allow hunters to hunt on their land! The CDOW finally came up with regulations that landowners that sell their tag must allow hunters to access their property (which may or may not be happening?). Also, companies that were selling gobs of landowner tags for profit have a tougher time.

Another landowner program I really don't like is set up in New Mexicio for antelope. Landowners get a large chunk of the available tags and anyone that draws a NM rifle antelope tag is assigned a particular ranch to hunt. A hunter can't research and apply for a particular unit and if he draws a crummy ranch he is screwed! Outfitters have a great thing going in NM since most of the better ranches are tied up and they charge an arm and leg for guided hunts. It is a real bum deal for hunters that like to hunt on their own because millions of acres of public land is not available to hunt through the rifle antelope draw!

These are just a couple examples of where landowner tags have gone bad! I have no quelms for landowners getting compensation for critters on their own land but believe caution should be made when sorting out specific landowner tag regs!

 

[bearman]

Thanks for your thoughts. I feel the landowner tags have gotten out of control it is turning hunting into a rich mans sport. In Nevada you can get up to 10,000 dollars for an Elk tag, so the land owner has a few Elk on his land is given a tag or two or more and makes a killing on selling it. Well the land owner is paying BLM a very small fee for there cattle to graze our public land. One thing to keep in mind these tags in Nevada are for Elk on native meadows not on hay meadows or damage to property which is paid to the rancher from NDOW. Anyone else have an opinion would like to hear.

 

[idhunters]

I guess you are making the argument that every landowner is a BLM permitee. You obviously don't like public lands grazing so you are tying the landower tags to the grazing allotments.

I don't see it that way. If you provide habitat or forage for the public animals, then I don't have a problem with compensation.

In Utah, they used to allow landowners to kill wildlife with only a 24 hour notice. They no longer allow that and they are compensated with tags. Thats a good thing. The tag is for compensation, not just hunting so who cares if they use it or sell it.

They should be required to allow access to their land but it makes sense to allow hunting in other areas. Why? maybe the wildlife only uses the deeded land from Jan to May-how can you hunt then?

Fence the wildlife out? You're kidding, right? Wouldn' that also fence the wildlife in?

 

[bearman]

I have no problem with aum's at all and some compensation not to the amount they are getting. One thing to keep in mind is Nevada is 85% public land. They are getting rich off of the animals and doing nothing but complaining about them. When the elk move off there land and they stop getting tags they scream even when there is no need in compensation. Utah could be different but Nevada ranchers are getting greedy.

 

[falloutwest]

I don't know why I am wasting time writing on this subject again as it has been played out on this forum repeatedly, but bearman, it appears you are reading a 12th grade essay at about a 3rd grade level.

The point of the landowner compensation tags is just that, "compensation." That is the point, the rancher is providing habitat for wildlife, but at a cost to the rancher. This cost, for example, is the reduction of crops such as third crop alfalfa to wildlife grazing. So, the state compensates the landowner for his loss and the wildlife continues to use the habitat.

The loses can be significant. A large herd of deer can significantly reduce the "testing" score of an alfalfa crop by eating the tender leaves of the plants and leaving the tougher stocks. This significantly reduces the value of the crop. So, in order to try and fairly compensate the landowners, NDOW allows the tags to be aplied to the entire unit in which the land lies so that the tags can be sold for a higher value. That is the way the system has to work. You get one deer tag for every 50 deer you have. Shooting one dder out of 50 off your property isn't going to do squat, its the financial compensation that makes the program go.

The alternative is to not compensate the landowner and have a situation where the landowner says fine, screw it, I want the animals off my property. It is then the states responsibility to remove them with depredation hunts, etc. That gets pretty ugly, as was the case in Knot Creek a few years back.

Nevada's system is working and it is working well. Its only opposition seems to come from jealous sportsman who think the lanowner is laughing all the way to the bank. I can assure you, that is seldomly the case.

In ID, in a lot of cases, the state actually pays the landowner money for compensation out of its own funds and it can cost the department a lot of money. At least in NV, all the compensation is coming from some Californian with too much money and is not costing NDOW much of anything.

 

[bearman]

Ok falloutwest I was not out to name call but you need to do your home work. In Nevada NDOW does pay money out for damages and for alfalfa and gives tags for sagebrush country you moron. I don't know one person ok with the system but the one benefiting from the tags. This is brought up to me all the time so I wanted some opinions on it not a cat fight from a first grader. There is a lot of unhappy people on this subject in Elko. The alternative is not what you said , Nevada is open range if wildlife is unwanted the land owner can fence them out at there cost. In this day and age ranchers and sportsmen need to work together or be forced out by bunny huggers. My family has ran many of the ranches in Nevada so don't think I'm against ranchers because I'm not. I do believe we need to work together. All I wanted is some input, self important people like your self is what makes mm hard to read sometimes.

 

[falloutwest]

No, what makes it hard to read is the fact that you didn't graduate high school. Why so upset? You posted looking for some input and I gave you input. Nothing in my previous post was untrue. My family has a ranch, we get 4 to 5 deer tags annually and everything I stated before was a fact. You keep bringing up the fence issue. Do you realize how ridiculous that is for any large piece of land. We are not talking about sheep here, we are talking about deer, elk, and antelope. Not just any fence will keep them out.

The fact that Nevada is open range has nothing to do with wildlife. Range laws deal with domestic livestock smart guy. The alternative is exactly what I said. There are plenty of documented cases of depredation hunts, created by the department, to remove unwanted wildlife (especially deer) from private property. I brought up the Knot Creek Ranch. Look it up, it occurred about 7 years ago and numerous deer were harvested with "emergency" type depredation tags because the landowner was fed up with people like you complaining about the big money he was getting paid for landowner tags. The departemnt was on the verge of a mass deer slaughter out there until the media caught wind of it and plans were changed.

As far as sagebrush county, there is some gray area there, but obviously the habitat is good game habitat or else the game wouldn't be there. Would you rather see the landowner sub-divide the land and start putting up houses to make some money? Stop whining and be happy that there is still habitat there to support wildlife.

 

[bearman]

Ok as I could tell you are an inbred idiot that thinks he knows it all. I did ask for opinions and yes you gave yours but you like to put other people down for there opinions. OK smart guy looks like a nerve was hit and if you think people are ok with the way things are your wrong. The stop whining I agree with there are elk out there and they do go on private land stop crying and deal with it. I'm sorry you where home schooled and you where sleeping with your teacher but don't worry when you get divorced your wife will still be your sister.Now stick to the topic!

 

[bearman]

You need to go read some of the hearings back in 1995 when elk compensation tags were first discussed , there was nothing but opposition from all major wildlife coalitions.

 

[spidey]

Good stuff guys. Land owner permits with elk are getting out of hand, but then again it is obvious that Nevada is managing more for elk than any other species. They are increasing the elk numbers everywhere and putting guzzlers in places that elk don't even belong, and NDOW supplies land owner tags to "make it ok." Meanwhile the mule deer population is suffering greatly.
I once read a post from you (bearman) that Nevada's target number for elk is 50,000. Are you dillusional?

 

[bearman]

The numbers based on biology show Nevada can have a lot more elk. You are right deer do need a lot more focus than they are getting elk have just been the hot topic. Thanks for the input.

 

[falloutwest]

What, I don't get a thank you but spidey does? Thank's for all the insults written in 4th grade format. Your sentences flow together like sweet music. Stick to the topic huh, I don't even know what the topic is anymore as all you are doing is rambling on about incest fantasies.

You and piper need to get together. The last pissin match I had about elk was with him, are you two brothers?

So now that the topic has switched from land owner tags to elk carrying capacity, lets talk about that. Are you of the opinion that there are not enough elk in NV? So let me get this right, you think that the state doesn't have enough elk but you are against any program that encourages private lands that support elk through compensation tags? You really are a piece of work.... Has it ever occured to you that about 90 percent of lands in NV that have enought water to support anything are private property? And to that, most water developments, with the exception of NDOW guzzlers, that are on public lands were developed by livestock producers? Do you have any idea what you are talking about at all?

Get a job where you have to work and can't sit around typing poorly on message boards all day, learn to form a complete sentence, and learn how to have an argument without going to the old inbreeding jokes that were funny when we were 12.

 

[bearman]

Are you from Nevada? If so around Elko, I would love to meet and talk about the wildlife. I read pipers thoughts and he feels the same as most people I talk to. To think that all the water in Nevada is developed by ranchers is a load of s**t.There is no doubt I didn't get an A in English or even a C but I damm well know what goes on in the hills.

 

[falloutwest]

See! Now that's more like it! Get your point across without all the name calling and mud slinging. I am from NV, but not the Elko area. I am from the north central part of the state. We don't deal with many elk issues, though I am very familier with NV and most of the issues. I've hunted elk in a lot of Elko county and have been pretty impressed with the numbers of animals I've seen. Heck there even starting to spill out of Elko county into Humboldt county and even into the desert county of southern Idaho so the numbers are there. In the end, it all comes back to the fact that NV is the most arid state in the country and water is the limiting factor, not range. I never said all the water in NV is developed by ranchers, but take a look at the amount of water that is on private land or the amount that is available to game due to stock developments. You are somewhat more fortuante in Elko to have more water than most counties, and that is why you have more elk and deeer than most counties too.

This is even the topic here, the topic was landowner comp tags. And no matter what you say, Nevada's system is still one of the better ones in the west. I'm sure there are some exceptions as there are to everything, but overall it is a good system that works for private landowners, game, and sportsmen. It could be much worse, trust me. Don't let a few hard headed ranchers that are opposed to big game and hunting curve your view. Most of the ranchers I know in north central NV love to hunt and love to have big game on their property, they just want to be fairly compensated for the habitat that they are providing and the decreased profits most of them see from feeding deer 4 months out of the year.

 

[bearman]

I do agree with some of what you have to say.I have hunted all over the state of Nevada and see the water issue we deal with. Ranchers have helped in some parts but you have to admit before ranching wildlife had no restrictions to water be it streams natural lakes extra. My main problem is here in Elko county that has water in every canyon. And a small group of ranchers that do nothing but scream about the Elk. My best friend is a rancher and he agrees the landowner tags are out of control and they are making a killing selling the tags for 10,000 and they get 5 to 6 tags. No wildlife is causing that much damage. I do believe we need to work together to hold off all the tree huggers.

 

[elkguide]

Just to clarify one thing, compensation tags for elk are giving to the landowners who have uncultivated ground that elk use and abuse, not cultivated crops such as alfalfa. Those who have natural hay meadows fall under uncultivated ground. Landowners get deer compensation tags for cultivated ground and also if enough elk are utilizing their land then a depredation hunt is created to reduce numbers of elk beating up the crops.

 

[falloutwest]

So I guess in the end, it is the elk land owner tags that you see the most problems with and as I said before, I am not as experienced with the elk tags (and they are worth a lot more money). The system for deer and antelope works great in Humbolt County and though some complain, most of the sportsman over this way are content with the system because they know the alternative. One other argument that I will make to your last post is that before ranching, deer and elk numbers were much lower than they are now in many of the areas in Nevada. I know a lot of people think that sounds obsurd but it is a fact. Many of the cultivated lands that exist in the valleys of NV have provided winter habitat that was never there before and actually increased deer levels from historic numbers. Historically, there were hardly any elk at all in Nevada. When you look at the journals of early pioneers and exporers such as Lewis and Clark, they about starved every time they passed through the Great Basin. Native Americans survived on mountain sheep and jack rabbits in NV, not deer and elk.

 

[spidey]

Wow, are you a historian? Poor bearman has been taking a beating from you, and now you claim that you really don't know what you're talking about. Good job on calling him out bearman. I am a land owner in Elko county and do get land owner deer tags. I have a long list of issues with NDOW and their management skills, but who doesn't.

 

[bearman]

You are correct in the fact deer and elk where low numbers. Ranching has been here since the 1800 and deer numbers were in a high in the 1980's so to say ranching is what gave deer there growth is very debatable. Ranching all but wiped out the sheep that once covered Nevada. It may seem like I hate ranching but I do really like the way of life. There are some I would fight at the drop of a hat because they think they have total say in what happens on our public land. I do agree with several things you say and have many Lewis and Clark books as well as Indian history books. Thanks for the input.

 

[falloutwest]

Spidey, I am not quite sure what you are refering to but if you would like to step up to the plate and take some of the so called "beating" (your words, not mine) then be my guest.

I am not a historian, but like bearman, I like to read historical books about the area I call home to get a better perspective. Most of these books are based on journals kept by early explorers and almost all early white settlers noted the lack of game in the Great Basin. Elk were a plains animal and mule deer were more common in the Rocky Mountains. Is that an observation worth aruging over? Yes deer numbers peaked in the mid 1980's but that is not even what I am refering too. Deer numbers in a lot of the state are pretty crappy right now but in most of those areas are a far cry higher than they were at the turn of the century. The point of my last post was that cultivated fields and even cattle grazing (oh my god, no way!) to some extent, improved deer habitat.

One can make a very valid argument that if you were to shut down every ranch in the state right now, let every field dry up, stop irrigating the meadows, get rid of all the hay stacks, water troughs, etc.. Cease ranching as we know it and walk away, five years from now there would likely be fewer mule deer in the state of NV. Now that should really get some attention because there are people that would argue both sides of that to the death, but think about it. Just think of the deer numbers that are supported by all the alfalfa fileds in this state. If that food source were gone would the deer just go back to the hills and do fine?? Some of them certainly would, but not all of them.

That is the point I was trying to make. Bearman, I thank you for allowing this post to turn back into a good argument and not letting it continue down the ugly path it was starting to take. Spidey, if you want to ring the bell and step in and see how you fare, I've still got a few good rounds left in me.

 

[NVBighorn]

Just to dump some gas on this fire here is the statute to which elkguide refers. I draw your attention to the part I bolded. Section 1,b,2,c,2. What's your interpretation of that? Don't think it's what was intended.


NRS 502.142 Establishment of program for issuance of special incentive elk tags.

1. The Commission shall adopt regulations to establish a program pursuant to which the Department will issue special incentive elk tags. The regulations must:

(a) Set forth the application and annual review processes for the issuance of special incentive elk tags.

(b) Require that an application for a special incentive elk tag must be accompanied by:

(1) The fee charged for an elk tag pursuant to NRS 502.250; and

(2) Any administrative fee charged in connection with the issuance of an elk tag pursuant to this chapter.

(c) Provide for the issuance of a special incentive elk tag only to a person who:

(1) Lawfully owns, leases or manages private land within an actual elk use area; and

(2) If that private land blocks reasonable access to adjacent public land, provides reasonable access through the private land to allow a person or hunting party possessing a valid elk tag to hunt elk on the adjacent public land.

(d) Establish criteria for the issuance of special incentive elk tags based upon:

(1) The number of elk using private land controlled by the applicant;

(2) The number of days the elk use private lands of the applicant in a calendar year;

(3) The total number of elk; and

(4) Limiting the number of special incentive elk tags issued in each calendar year to not more than one-half of the bull elk tags issued in that calendar year,

? within the actual elk use area in the unit or units of the management area or areas in which the private land is located.

(e) Provide that special incentive elk tags are valid for both sexes of elk.

(f) Prohibit a person who has, within a particular calendar year, applied for or received compensation pursuant to NRS 504.165 as reimbursement for damage caused by elk to private land from applying, within the same calendar year, for a special incentive elk tag for the same private land.

(g) Allow a group of owners, lessees and managers of private land to qualify for a special incentive elk tag for their combined lands.

(h) Ensure that the issuance of special incentive elk tags will not result in the number of bull elk tags issued in any year being reduced to a number below the quota for bull elk tags established by the Commission for 1997.

(i) Provide that a person to whom a special incentive elk tag is issued by the Commission pursuant to this section may:

(1) If he holds a valid hunting license issued by this State, use the special incentive elk tag himself; or

(2) Sell the special incentive elk tag to another person who holds a valid hunting license issued by this State at any price upon which the parties mutually agree.

(j) Require that a person who is issued a special incentive elk tag must hunt:

(1) During the open season for elk.

(2) In the unit or units within the management area or areas in which the private land is located.

(k) Provide for the appointment of an arbitration panel to resolve disputes between persons who apply for special incentive elk tags and the Department regarding the issuance of such tags.

2. As used in this section, ?actual elk use area? means an area in which elk live, as identified and designated by the Department.

(Added to NRS by 1997, 1379; A 1999, 1226; 2003, 1534)

 

[NVBighorn]

LAST EDITED ON Sep-11-08 AT 09:01PM (MST)[p]Aaaaaaaannnnnnnddddddd then, here's the deer compensation tag statute. Note the bolded (by me) parts.

NRS 502.143 Establishment of program for issuance of special incentive deer tags.

1. The Commission may adopt regulations establishing a program pursuant to which the Department may issue special incentive deer tags to owners, lessees and managers of private land in this State for use on the private land of such owners, lessees or managers.

2. The regulations must:

(a) Require that the owner, lessee or manager who is lawfully in control of private land must, before he is issued a special incentive deer tag:

(1) Allow the hunting and viewing of wildlife on his land by the general public; or

(2) Enter into a cooperative agreement with the Department to improve deer or other wildlife habitat on his land.

(b) Allow the owner, lessee or manager to sell any special incentive deer tag that he is issued pursuant to the program.

(Added to NRS by 1997, 1380; A 2003, 1535)

 

[falloutwest]

NVBighorn, When the heck are you going goat hunting with your son? Did you get all of the information I passed on to Ryan?

Thanks for supplying the State Codes for reference. One important note is that NRS 502.143 referes only to special incentive deer tags.

NRS 502.145 Issuance of deer or antelope tags as compensation for damage to private property; is the state code that refers to landowner compensation tags which is what I have been arguing for here. However, I don't believe that there is any seperation between the compensation and incentive tags for elk.
I whole heartedly agree with the portions that are highlighted for the incentive tags as that what incentive means. We give you a tag as incentive for you to make your property available to the hunting public. However, this is a whole different can of worms than what I have been arguing in this post. Again, I stated this a few posts ago and I will again, I am not as familiar with the elk tags and that is where bearman seemed to have the majority of his beef was with that program.

There is still a slight chance that I will be up there archery elk hunting while you guys are goat hunting, if that's the case, we should try and get together and I can show you some places on a map. Let me know when you are going for sure.

 

[NVBighorn]

fallout, I was just tryijng to fire you guys up some more. Honestly haven't read your entire debate.

Yes, Ryan has been passing your info along. Thanks. I leave here on the 26th. We all meet that evening, backpack in the 27th. Hope I don't die up there. Big country and I hate backpacking. Gonna stay in one area for about three or four days, come out for one and go back into another place for the rest of the week if need be. After that, I'm about done. Too much going on. My son was up there Labor Day weekend. He and his wife backpacked into an area he hadn't been and saw one billy. He really didn't want to shoot one that early because of the cape situation. They had a blast catching fish and camping until it snowed Labor Day.

I have my one man tent and sleeping bag setup in the front yard. Going out there now to try it out. Need to test everything. Yuck.

I will PM you my cell phone number so if you are up there maybe we can meet up.

Have I mentioned I hate backpacking?

 

[falloutwest]

LAST EDITED ON Sep-11-08 AT 10:07PM (MST)[p]Sure, stir the pot why don't you? This is a senitive post. You could send somebody off the deep end!!

Sounds like we might miss you by a weekend as I may be up there the weekend before that. However, you never know so get me your number and I can try and get ahold of you if we are up there. I had planned to be up there for a week chasing elk but am spending most of my free time now chasing bighorns in NV with my old man. Don't be overly intimidated by those mountains, they look big and nasty but there are lots of good trails and you can get around pretty well. Once you get some elevation out of the way, its not all that bad, and once you start chasing goats, it makes it that much easier.

It's been getting down in the twenties up there pretty regularly for a few weeks now, so I would imagine by the the time you guys go, the coats will be in good shape. Good luck, send some pictures and pack for all types of weather! It can change up there in a matter of minutes.

 

[NVBighorn]

PM sent.

>but am spending most of
>my free time now chasing
>bighorns in NV with my
>old man.

Yeah, how's that hunt going?

>pack for all types of
>weather! It can change
>up there in a matter
>of minutes.

Oh great, my pack just got heavier. Actually I just took a nap in my bag in the tent. Wasn't half bad once I got stuffed in it... 'til the phone rang.

 

[bearman]

Falloutwest thanks for the debt. I was hoping to get more input from a lot of people. For any one interested the Coalition for Nevada Wildlife will be meeting Oct. 4 in Reno. They will be going over the changes to the wildlife commission and what we can do.

 

[GONHUNTIN]

I think that the landowner tags should only be used within 5 miles of the land not the entire unit and they should not be sold at high dollar prices