Landowner Compensation - Good/Bad???

Founder

Founder

Founder Since 1999
Messages
11,499
Landowner Tags - Always a fun subject.

I just wanted to share these photos (below) of what I believe is a trend that will continue if sportsmen continue to expect private land owners to support OUR wildlife for free.

These photos are from the west desert of Utah. Sportsmen and sportsman groups have worked hard to establish and increase the elk herd in this unit for years. The elk herd has done well, partly because about 300 head used this landowners fields to feed in during both summer and winter months.

The landowner did recieve a landowner tag a couple years ago, but the value of that tag did not compensate him enough to feed those elk for us sportsmen. He asked the DWR to remove the elk from his land, as they competed too heavily with his cattle for limited feed.

The fence cost around $100,000. UDWR paid for most of it. So, one way or another, sportsmen will probably pay the bill, whether it be by compensating landowners before they build the high fences or compensate them to build the high fences.

It's still too early to say if the carrying capacity of the unit will be effected.

The fact is, sportsmen across the West are constantly wanting larger herds (most areas are under objective for mule deer). I think sportsmen should be wanting to encourage private landowners to help feed OUR game.
I think many sportsmen assume that EVERYONE wants large deer and elk herds. That just isn't the case.
Whether it be through landowner vouchers, tags, or direct compensation, we need to reward the private landowners who support a large portion of our wildlife.

I'm not saying that Utah, Colorado, or any other state has the perfect system right now. But I am saying that I believe we need to remember that it's OUR job to take care of OUR wildlife.

Anyway, that's that. Let's hear what you got to say.

459f4f871764abd9.jpg

459f4fa817c25102.jpg


Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
 
No compensatory tags for landowners. Particularly if said landowner trys to sell these tags/tresspass fees at ridiculous rates. That practice should be illegal. Public easmants should be granted on those properties which are vast and block access to federal and state lands. Build your own damn fence at your expense if you dont like what wildlife does to your property.
And the most important point: It amazes me to see huge tracts of land with no tresspass signs posted every twenty feet, then finally hit the federal land and what do i see? Some land baron's cattle or sheep trashing and competeing with our elk and deer herds. Keep them on your land or every deer or elk tag should be good to hang on a dead cow after I blast it. At your expense.

Peace out.
 
What about all of the grazing leases that landowners get on public land? Because we are helping to feed THEIR cattle and sheep on OUR land at the expense of the wild critters.

Or the landowners here in MT that buy up a bunch of property, close it off totally to hunters, and then complain when the critters are eating them out of house and home in January.

And what about all of the rich a$$holes that buy a huge ranch in the west and close it off completely to all hunters? Do they deserve landowner tags too?

Am I the only one who thinks that landowners have created their own problems because back in the good old days you never heard about this crap and all you had to do for some hunting was knock on somebody's door?
 
Dang BL you are on one again!! Have fun...

Those photo's don't look like that country could support jack rabbits and snakes let alone cattle and elk/deer year round...

On another note...

The big bucks haven't come in yet... maybe this snow will bring 'em down... up there this morning... will keep ya posted.

Robb
 
I'LL BET DEEP DOWN INSIDE WHEN ITS BIG STINKY BULLS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THEM LANDOWNERS DON'T MIND THE PERMITS!!!

PROBLEM IS,ITS ANOTHER MONEY DEAL!!!

LIKE FROM WHAT I HEAR ABOUT THE LATE MANTI HUNT,IF ITS NOT A RIDICULOUS FEE FOR A LANDOWNER TAG ITS A RIDICULOUS FEE FOR A TRESPASS FEE/PERMIT!!!

I THINK THE DAY WE FENCE OFF ALL OF THE PRIVATE LAND FOR THE LANDOWNERS IS THE DAY WE TELL THEM TO KEEP THEIR CATTLE OFF THE PUBLIC GROUND,BUT THAT WON'T WORK EITHER!!!

IF YOU DO SOMETHING FOR ONE LAND OWNER YOU BETTER GET YOUR FENCING LOADED & READY TO PUT UP FOR THE REST OF THEM LANDOWNERS!!!

I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH LAND OWNERS FOR THE MOST PART,THE OLDER COWBOYS/LANDOWNERS ARE WAY SMARTER & NOT NEAR AS GREEDY AS THE YOUNGER ONES!!!

THE ONLY bobcat THINKING THIS IS A PROBLEM YOU WILL HAVE UNTIL THE END OF TIME!!!
 
Wildlife is eating too much of my cow food....waaahhhh.

Instead of brokering $8,000 tags through the landowner, why not open it up to public hunting. If the winter use is the problems, allow the public to participate in damage control hunts managed through the state with leftover tags or a lottery system.

Founder, are you more concerned with the health of the herds and recreation opportunities of the not so rich public or your advertisers and business? From the cheap seats it looks like you see $$$.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-06-07 AT 09:22AM (MST)[p]Compensating Landowners for harboring wildlife is a good thing.

Whether landowners should get compensatory tags in Colorado is not the issue, no matter how hard you try to make it one.

There are at least two issues here: Should third party 'entrepreneurs' also be able to make huge sums of money off of a program that was meant to compensate Landowners who harbor wildlife on their property?

If the current proposed changes take place it will be the landowners who have to market and make the money off the tags given for their properties. And that is the way it should be. If "Entrepreneurs" find a way around this new wording I expect and hope the Wildlife Commission will recognize this and change the wording as necessary to keep this program within the boundaries of it's intent.

An additional issue is whether these vouchers should be good unit wide or only on the land they were issued for. I feel strongly that they should be not valid unit wide but should be used only on the property they were issued for.

When you say OUR Wildlife I assume you are using the legal definition in Colorado? That is to say the wildlife belongs to the State of Colorado.


There you have it.


Beanman
 
Wow, Founder, you sure have learned to distort a subject. You have made it known many times that "you are in it for yourself". The simple fact of the matter is our modern conservation principle is based on the fact that the wildlife belongs to the public, not a broker middle-man. Colorado needs to shut the door on the abuse of the landowner tag system. End of story.
 
Oh Yeah--way to go Brian....did you really have to bring out the rednecks on this one.

It's just sick and wrong that we compensate these landowners who feed our wildlife 24/7 isn't it. In fact it's just down right pathetic that they get anything from wildlife if they can't make it today and just realize that having wildlife is the cost of doing business they should just get out. I would rather see houses, commercial development or a waste dump on their property then having them getting one red cent from feeding or having wildlife on their property. Landowner compensation for wildlife is absolutely a bad idea.

Oh yeah, and what about all those grazing permits that they get for practically free--no one else in the good old US of A is compensated or subsidized for anything including my cheap wildlife hunting permit that when put of the fair market brings 10 to 20 times what I buy it for.

You guys need to all wake up and pull your head out of your sphincter--you all receive benefits from cooperative landowners who don't mind a few animals and SHOULD receive some compensation from it. If they don't want to cooperate, then we should fence it off.

Look at pheasant hunting in the west--where are the vast majority of the birds found, yes on private land who provides the habitat--that's right the private landowner. So when you put an elk heard in the WEST DESERT and there isn't any good habitat provided by our state and federal land management agencies that are tax dollars all go to pay for--where else are these elk going to get the needed green groceries? That's right on private lands on a landowner?s property who has spent years and lots of dough creating a lush green hay field. Truth be told a huge reason many of our big game herds in the west are even around is because of private lands and private landowners.

But let's not even think about giving them any credit let alone any money for feeding our wildlife.

Do you know where I stand on this one?


Todd Black
BTO
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-06-07 AT 10:33AM (MST)[p]Maybe SFW can start cutting checks for compensation. I like that idea better than the of selling wildlife.
 
mtmiller - I don't base my opinion on $$$. My opinion would be the same whether I owned this website or not. I guess it's easy to accuse me of only seeing $$$ in hopes of discrediting my opinion. That's fine, but it's not the case.
But, there's nothing I can do to fix that. I need advertisers to pay the bills.

PS - To kill 300 head of elk in a quality unit in Utah is the same as taking 5 super trophy bulls. The UDWR has come to realize that it makes more sense to continue issuing 4 of those trophy tags to the public and issue a landowner tag to satisfy the landowners. Sportsmen come out 4 big bulls ahead, but at the cost of one high dollar landowner tag.
I just don't see how that is bad for sportsmen? We get more tags when a unit can carry more game.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
 
>LAST EDITED ON Jan-06-07
>AT 09:22?AM (MST)
>
>Compensating Landowners for harboring wildlife is
>a good thing.
>
>Whether landowners should get compensatory tags
>in Colorado is not the
>issue, no matter how hard
>you try to make it
>one.
>
>There are at least two issues
>here: Should third party
>'entrepreneurs' also be able to
>make huge sums of money
>off of a program that
>was meant to compensate Landowners
>who harbor wildlife on their
>property?
>
>If the current proposed changes take
>place it will be the
>landowners who have to market
>and make the money off
>the tags given for their
>properties. And that is
>the way it should be.
> If "Entrepreneurs" find a
>way around this new wording
>I expect and hope the
>Wildlife Commission will recognize this
>and change the wording as
>necessary to keep this program
>within the boundaries of it's
>intent.
>
>An additional issue is whether these
>vouchers should be good unit
>wide or only on the
>land they were issued for.
> I feel strongly that
>they should be not valid
>unit wide but should be
>used only on the
>property they were issued for.
>
>
>When you say OUR Wildlife I
>assume you are using the
>legal definition in Colorado?
>That is to say the
>wildlife belongs to the State
>of Colorado.
>
>
>There you have it.
>
>
>Beanman



Can I come hunt on your land this fall?????? Pretty easy to see which way the wind blows in this forum. 9/10 guys are being shafted by their state lawmakers who cater to wealthy landowners. Just another knife in the back to the average sportsman by those who want to commercialize hunting and fishing. And screw everyone but the wealthy out of what we love.
 
Beanman - I really don't think it matters how we compensate landowners, but we should do so in some manner. I know you hate the fact that "Brokers" are involved in Colorado and making money. Maybe the state should find a way to market the tags or vouchers and cut the brokers out. Of course then the state is the broker and government usually likes to take a large cut too.

The fact is, right now, the landowners have to market their vouchers one way or another. It's going to cost them something to market the vouchers, no matter how they do it. They have used brokers because brokers have the clients to buy them. No one makes a landowner use a broker.
A simple solution would be for landowners to ask CDOW to list their names on CDOW's website if they want help marketig vouchers.

Honestly, in my opinion, it doesn't matter how we "Encourage private landowners to support wildlife", but we need to do it. Landowner tags and vouchers have been the best solution for Wildlife Depts. If that isn't working, they should try something else.

I'm not making my agrument that landowner vouchers or tags are good because I have a couple advertisers who sell them. If they go away, those advertisers are smart guys and will work it out, as will MonsterMuleys.com. I make the argument because I think sportsmen should understand that we need to support OUR wildlife.
OUR wildlife might officially belong to everyone in the state, but ONLY sportsmen really care about the wildlife and WE need to take care of it.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
 
This thread seems to be a continuation of the decision by the CO wildlife commission to limit "brokering" of landowner tags this year. Once again, landowners are still getting their allocation of licenses. Landowners are not being impacted by the regulation as far as the number of licenses, only by having to allow hunters with their landowner tag being allowed to hunt on the private land associated with the tag.
As far as landowners having to support big game animals, the CDOW will supply the materials for landowners to prevent animals from damaging property (haystacks, etc.) and will provide cracker shells to move animals off of private land. CDOW bends over backwards to appease landowners IMHO.
 
Well, I didn't post this thread to continue on with the Colorado stuff. I posted the thread to dicuss landowner compensation....Good or Bad....and however any State Wildlife Agency decides to compensate landowners.

The ONLY reason I argue that landowners in Colorado should not be limited in the manner in which they sell vouchers, is because I really wouldn't want the state telling me how to sell my goods. It wouldn't be right for the state to tell home owners that they can no longer use a broker to sell their home.

Anyway, lets keep this argument focused on the Good and/or Bad of vouchers and tags in ANY state, and whether or not landowners should be compensated.

PS - That new CO rule that states landowners need to allow access to all of the property used to get the vouchers, is a good move. IMO, I think a landowner should allow open access to ALL hunters if they are going to participate in the program. Same for Utah. That's something I think should be added to the statute.
Some landowners and brokers might not agree, but that's my opinion.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
 
I guess I don't understand landowner compensation very well. I think if you are going to live out in the wilds then you live with what is out there. If elk , deer , wolves, etc... are taking big bites out of your bottom line then it's the land owners responsibilty to protect "HIS" investments according to the laws of said land. Greed gentlemen!! It's destroying our sport. The cost of tags, the cost of equipement, the cost of landowner permitts and tresspass fees it's all going away because people have discovered how to make a lot of money by prostituting hunting. There was a day when a landowner would welcome hunters without any suggestion of fees. Just please close my gates is all that was asked. Welcome to the 21st century. Brian, I have to say if a landowner wants wildlife to be kept off his land then it's his dollar and his resposibilty to make that happen not mine. I also agree if the ranchers don't allow hunters on their property "for a reasonable charge" then keep their cattle off federal lands period. Just my opinion.
 
The problem in CO is that landowners want to be compensated on their own terms. The CDOW bends over backwards to reduce wildlife conflicts on private property. Most of these efforts are for naught because landowners want to have their cake and eat it too.

Landowner vouchers are a way of reducing wildlife pressure on private lands if they were used as they were originally intended. That intention was to give landowners the opportunity to hunt on their own property while increasing pressure on wildlife on private lands. Now landowners want to sell the licenses to the highest bidder and not allow access to those lands. The truth is, the landowners want money in their pockets more than they want wildlife off their property.

In an effort to pacify landowners, the CDOW created a new category of licence, the Private Land Only (PLO) license. These are not to be confused with Landowner Vouchers, as many MM members often do. PLO licenses are offered in the regular draw to anybody that wants to apply. The kicker is that anybody who draws them must be able to secure permission to hunt on private property. These licenses come out of the ?public? pool of license for a particular unit, after landowners have already taken 15% off the top. Essentially, the CDOW created a separate pool of limited licenses for those who can afford to pay landowners for hunting privileges. PLO licenses were created to increase pressure on private property during regular rifle seasons. The hope was that this increased pressure would move game around and make them more accessible to ALL hunters, on private lands or otherwise. This would help landowners twofold: (1) move animals off their lands during hunting season and, (2) increase overall harvest in an area to reduce pressure on those lands in the winter.

So now landowners are given 15% of all limited licenses (vouchers) that they can sell to the highest bidder. They are also given a separate pool of licenses to draw from that are only good on private property (PLO licenses). This gives them essentially guaranteed licenses for those who want to pay for hunting privileges on their property, as well as family members.

Remember, all these licenses, PLO and vouchers, are coming out of the public pool, and are unavailable to those who cannot pay-to-play. A look at the leftover license lists in late summer will show you just how much opportunity landowners are given. I went through the leftover elk list last September and added up all the PLO leftover licenses on the list. They totaled well over 5,000! That's opportunity lost to the average hunter that's going unused by the landowners.

The fact is, if landowners used the current system the way it was intended to be used, they would be compensated handsomely for their support of wildlife AND would have far fewer issues. Instead, they want to have their cake and eat it too. Some people are fed up with it and are going to try to stop it. Greed has sealed the landowners? fates on this issue and if they lose the battle, they can take a look in the mirror first when laying blame.
 
Landowners SHOULD be compensated for maintaining habitat for OUR wildlife. The same guys that say they should never be compensated are the same guys that will complain that a ranch gets sold and turned into a subdivison of "trophy" homes.

If you think all of the landowners with quality wildlife properties are owned by rich fat cats, think again. The most danger we have in the future of wildife is loss of habitat, mainly because family farms/ranches are being sold off and turned into subdivisions.

Example, someone owns 500 acres of winter habitat that has been in the family for 100 years. Due to real estate prices, the family gets calls all the time to sell the property for multimillion dollars. Family keeps trying to make a profit on the land, but it is becoming increasingly harder to do. Pretty tempting to sell out and retire. Poof, now we got houses where elk/mule dder used to winter.

Compensation: Yes
Landowner tags being sold for public land ONLY hunts: No

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
Beanman, please give us an answer to the following scenerio since you seem to have this all figured out:
You are a landowner that supports 250 head of elk and a 100 head of deer on your 4000 acre cattle ranch from Late November to March. You are alloted 10 vouchers (vouchers that are only good for your 4000 acre ranch) to compensate you for carring these animals through the winter. You attempt to sell the vouchers but are unable to do so as the vouchers are not worth anything due to few animals being present on your property during the hunting season for which the vouchers are good for. You demand a fence from the dow or you will start killing the animals. The dow agrees to build a fence at the expense of the public ( I can't even began to imagine what it would cost to fence 4000 acres). Hunters foot the bill, and the animals lose the habitat. How does anyone win in this situation?
 
If landowners have large tracks of land and don't farm it, would getting land owner tags be worth it ? They aren't REALLY loosing anything ? Should they still be compensated ?


-Moosie

People, they thin' I don't know a Buttload of Crap About the Gosple, but I do. (Nacho Libre)
 
4000 acres would be a little over 6 sections. Depending on how the land is layed out it would be at very least 10 miles of fence around the perimeter. High fences run $20,000+ dollars per mile.

Drum
 
Cabinfever, your scenario is not realistic in Colorado because the DOW bends over backwards to work with landowners on these issues. They have late hunts, damage hunts, offer game damage compensation, etc. There are a LOT of ways of resolving issues like this other than offering wildlife up to the highest bidder.
 
I just looked it up, and in 2006 there were 30,637 PLO elk licenses offered in the regular draw. That's in addition to the 15% of licenses landowners get off the top in the form of vouchers if they apply. It doesn't include Ranching for Wildlife licenses either.
 
>Founder, are you more concerned with
>the health of the herds
>and recreation opportunities of the
>not so rich public or
>your advertisers and business?
>From the cheap seats it
>looks like you see $$$.
>

Amen to that!

Founder, you say that they are OUR critters. If they are public property, then why are landowners the ones that deserve to make money off of them??? I would bet that 99.9% of hunters get NO benefit from landowner vouchers, which to me really doesn't seem all that PUBLIC.
 
BTO,

Have you tried pheasant hunting in the West? Because it is a TRAIN WREAK! Every decent piece of riverbottom is leased by some a$$hole and you can't hardly find a place to chase roosters all because of the $$$$$$...so yeah, that's exactly what we want. The residents can't hunt, but the out of staters can because they can afford a lease...good idea.

And for the pheasants, well the landowner is not leasing because the pheasants are destroying his crops, infact they probably benefit the landowner by eating some grasshoppers, so it's not like he MUST lease to balance out the damage done by voracious pheasants. He does it because some dickweed offered him $12,000 for exclusive hunting rights.


And by the way, big game herds are around because of conservation-minded hunters...
 
ColoradoOak - My understanding from rancher friends in Colorado is that a landowner is ONLY given compensation for "Crop" damage. The grasses and brush that many of their cattle feed on are not considered "Crop" and the landowners are not compensated.

Also, late hunts and damage hunts are meant to REDUCE herds. Why would sportsmen want LESS wildlife? We want as much wildlife as we can possibly support (with the private landowners help). That way more of us get to hunt.
If we can have 5 more tags in a unit at the expense of giving a landowner 1 tag to auction to the highest bidder...WE WIN! We come out 4 tags ahead! Why would we want to kill game in the middle of the winter (reduce the herd) to get them off private land just so that no rich guy gets to buy a voucher?

At this point in time, I think we could get away with shafting private landowners and see little difference in herd numbers. But what will it look like 20 years from now? If we shaft them now, we hurt the future.

I think we should want landowners to value OUR wildlife. We should want landowners to want wildlife on their lands. The only way to create that "Want", is to give them a reason to "Want". I think that means financial incentives.
Not all landowners feel the same about wildlife as we do. Many don't hunt, and many wouldn't care if herds decrease until they're critically endangered. History has proven that.

You've said there are "LOTS" of ways to resolve the issues, but what are they? What is going to make ALL parties (sportsmen and landowners) happy.

I believe the Colorado system needs to be fixed too. But, I don't think the answer is to ask private landowners to support OUR wildlife, the wildlife they can live with or without, for free.
They might just decide to live without it, and WE will feel the pain.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
 
Old_man - They deserve something because they feed them. Their land feeds them. We benefit because without that private land opened up for wildlife to feed during the winter, there would be less tags.....and FAR less tags 20 years from now.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
 
ColoradoOak, I believe your missing my whole point. Cdow is bending over backwards for the Land Owner because they understand the key role they play in managing wildlife. You don't manage the wildlife on a day to day basis so you don't understand what it takes to make it all happen. Trust me, if Cdow could scrap the program today without affecting current management objectives they would.
You want to cut out the tag brokers;knock yourself out, I really don't care. I agree that the LO program needs a tune up to eliminate those that are abusing it. Bottom Line; if and when the vouchers lose value to the LO is the minute everyone loses.

Mike
 
I think anyone who has never owned any more ground than their 8000 square foot lot from Ivory homes, could even possibly begin to understand the LO issues. I have put up and maintained 2500 feet of fence and when it gets knocked down, or pushed down, it costs a little money and hours of work.

If you live in a subdivision and the neighbors dog keeps chewing a hole in your fence how happy would you be? Probably not too happy and you would be in Judge Judy's court.

Just one example.
 
>ColoradoOak, You don't manage
>the wildlife on a day
>to day basis so you
>don't understand what it takes
>to make it all happen.
>>Mike


Um, Mike, exactly who AM I? How do you know what I do for a living?
 
>ColoradoOak - My understanding from rancher
>friends in Colorado is that
>a landowner is ONLY given
>compensation for "Crop" damage. The
>grasses and brush that many
>of their cattle feed on
>are not considered "Crop" and
>the landowners are not compensated.

Correct, but crops are part of the problem. Game damage reimbursment is part of the solution.

>Also, late hunts and damage hunts
>are meant to REDUCE herds.
>Why would sportsmen want LESS
>wildlife?

What are cow elk hunts during the regular rifle seasons or blackpowder season for? Why would hunters participate in those hunts if they don't want to support "herd reduction" hunts?


>At this point in time, I
>think we could get away
>with shafting private landowners and
>see little difference in herd
>numbers. But what will it
>look like 20 years from
>now? If we shaft them
>now, we hurt the future.

I don't see how anybody could think landowners are getting shafted. I think you, along with landowners, think that they are owed a living off of all of our wildlife.


>I think we should want landowners
>to value OUR wildlife. We
>should want landowners to want
>wildlife on their lands. The
>only way to create that
>"Want", is to give them
>a reason to "Want". I
>think that means financial incentives.

You're exactly right. It's all about the money. I think it's darn sad that the only benefit to wildlife that landowners see is how it might improve their bottom lines. Is that how you value wildlife? If you can't shoot it or sell it, we can just throw it away?

>You've said there are "LOTS" of
>ways to resolve the issues,
>but what are they? What
>is going to make ALL
>parties (sportsmen and landowners) happy.

There ARE lots of ways of fixing the problem of wildlife eating farmers' crops and grazing lands up. I named a whole bunch of them above, including taking advantage of ALL the PLO licenses available. That's not a viable alternative to them because it doesn't put money in the bank.
 
ColoradoOak, lets hope for the sake of wildlife and hunters in CO your not a biologist for Cdow.If you are, why dont you let us know. It may give you a little more credibility.

Mike
 
"If you are, why dont you let us know. It may give you a little more credibility."

How about Cabinfever print his Resume first !!!!

Some peoples kids.

Hey Founder.... the word "UNCLE" comes to mind, tap out bud ;)

Carry on.....................

-Moosie

People, they thin' I don't know a Buttload of Crap About the Gosple, but I do. (Nacho Libre)
 
If you are going to compensate landowners for deer and elk, then why not compensate for birds and gophers? I don't agree with developing land into houses either. States should zone the land for agriculture or native grasses. If you buy it then you should use it according to what it is zoned for. If you don't like the wildlife on your land then don't buy the land, your choice. If you buy a piece of land with snakes on it, is it the responsibility of the state fish and game to remove the snakes if you don't like them? I can agree that we need to work with landowners, but that doesn't mean putting up high fences for them or paying them. If they have animals on their land then they should get private land landowner tags. If they don't then tough! When you have fish and game putting up high fences you will end up like texas, nowhere to hunt but private land. If you want landowners to get paid for "allowing" wildlife on their land, then eliminate cattle grazing on national forest land, period! This would definitely help the areas I have hunted in Colorado. Not to mention that I saw several ranchers drive their cattle( thousands of cattle) down onto BLM land when the snows hit, fifteen days after they were supposed to have the cattle out of the national forest. I think the state needs to take more control in a different way, that is to determine how the land can be used and not supporting high fences which means the wildlife loses the land forever. Is the landowner going to come up with a million dollars to fence out wildlife, not in most cases. Let the landowner know they will work with them, not just give them money or fences. If they are creating a problem for the landowners cattle, let the landowner put his cattle on BLM land. If we stop catering to these landowners that are whining then maybe a sportsman can buy the land or even better yet, have the state start buying the land back! I would give money to the state fish and game to buy back land and make it public rather than pay the landowner. Let landowners accept the fact that land in the west will have wildlife on it. Support agencies that get the land away from developers and away from the cranky landowners that don't want to work with the wildlife.
 
LET ME SPLAIN IT!!!

GAME = $$$ !!!

QUALITY GAME ANIMALS = BIG $$$ !!!

NOW IF IT WAS JUST AN OLD Nomad BUCK OR TWO CHEWING UP FARMER JOHNSONS STUBBLE IT WOULDN'T BE SO BAD!!!

BUT IF ITS A FEW BIG STINKY BULLS WORTH 10'S OF THOUSANDS AND EATING HIM OUT OF HOUSE & HOME THATS A DIFFERENT STORY!!!

THE ONLY bobcat WONDERING IF THE AVERAGE TARD CAN SEE PAST THE FUTURE OF TOMMORROW???
 
RE: LET ME SPLAIN IT!!!

You guys are killing me! If this fence is where I think it is the elk were placed there a few years back? Like 15-20? Now the landowner is supposed to feed these critters with no compensation? These ranches have been there a long long time.

If a farmer has a ranch and a capacity of 100 cows, deer and elk are reducing the capicity to 95, is that not a big deal? Not to us, but surely to the farmer. 5 steers will bring about 5k. When a state reduces tags and increases numbers of animals and quality, or even transplants them, can you guys honestly say they should not be compensated? Lose 5 cows and get 5 vouchers? Sounds fair enough to me.

I know I would be pissed if my work said I had to take a $200 a month pay cut. Don't you think the farmer that loses 5 cows would be pissed? I cannot blame anyone who protects their annual income.
 
>Old_man - They deserve something because
>they feed them. Their land
>feeds them. We benefit because
>without that private land opened
>up for wildlife to feed
>during the winter, there would
>be less tags.....and FAR less
>tags 20 years from now.
>
>
>Brian Latturner
>MonsterMuleys.com

How did they get along in the days before vouchers? I think the problem is that now a days, everybody thinks they DESERVE money for everything. Yesterday I saw a tip cup in the drive thru window of a fast food restaurant...what is the world coming to?

People move to MT, build a house out in some critter's home and then complain when a lion eats fluffy...you live in the woods, so what do you expect? Its the same thing for ranchers, if they don't want elk, then they can ranch in Kansas or something.

They way I see it, they aren't feeding the wild game, NATURE IS FEEDING THEIR LIVESTOCK
 
RE: LET ME SPLAIN IT!!!

"The ONLY reason I argue that landowners in Colorado should not be limited in the manner in which they sell vouchers, is because I really wouldn't want the state telling me how to sell my goods. It wouldn't be right for the state to tell home owners that they can no longer use a broker to sell their home".


Difference there, is the people of Colorado do not have a right to your web site nor your home like they do its wildlife.
 
So does anybody know what the vouchers bring in per year? Take a guess and let us know because I would be willing to bet that if the state just sold the vouchers outright that they could buy up an awful lot of winter range and make WMAs out of it for the critters.
 
RE: LET ME SPLAIN IT!!!

LAST EDITED ON Jan-06-07 AT 06:22PM (MST)[p]What is really funny as well, is that I live no more than 200 yards from some of the Colorado private property that sells a BUNCH of very sought after landowner vouchers. And I can tell you it is not used more than 1% of the time by Mule deer in any season.

So lets go ahead and give them ______ amount of tags based on the acreage. And let these tag buyers hunt pubic land. I would say the biggest % of landowner tags in this unit come from properties that are not significant to muley survival , yet they get the tags. What a great idea.
 
RE: Landowner Compensaton - Good/Bad???

a3dhunter,

If you want to get eliminate grazing on National Forest then get your check book out and start buying grazing permits. We had some for sale a few years ago and I would rather have sold them to you then the guy that has them now and is stuck fixing fence several times a year so he can keep the cattle in his allotment and then gathering them back up after the elk knock it down again only to be told he needs to have them off a month early because of the drought. Grazing permitties have spent years making ponds, catch basins and developing springs for cattle to water which also benefits wildlife. So go ahead and get rid of grazing permits and let us know how the range-land and wildlife are doing in 20 years.

What do you want the State to do with all the Ag. land you want them to buy? Who is going to change sprinklers,cut and bale hay?

Now to the original compensation question. Our family owns some farm land and at times deer and elk have caused problems. Last Monday I spent two hours cleaning up a stack of hay the deer tore up and trampled. Yes it was an inconvenience but while I was cleaning it up I couldn't help but think about the winter we are having and the negative effect it is going to have on what I consider a good fawn crop this year. Not once did I think about who is going to compensate me for it. Depending on the circumstance I don't think 8' fences are the answer, all that does is give the problem to your neighbor. I don't think giving tags for compensation would be a good. Every farmer or rancher in the State would all the sudden have crop damage. Believe me I would love to have an elk tag but I'll just keep the hard way and draw one.
 
mtmiller, I don't operate in CO .
It is imperative that landowners are compensated, I could elaborate but I won't
 
This LO did NOT ask for these elk to be introduced onto HIS land, yet some are saying it is his problem if elk are eating him out of his home. Brilliant. Stick it to the LO's and when they develope their land into sub-divisions blame the LO's. Anyone who has/does own land that has wildlife affecting their bottom dollar UNDERSTAND the costs wildlife can/do bring to the farmers. It easy to sit in your cement dwelling and judge a landowner trying to make a living and having you tell him to just take it like a man and feed "our" elk/deer at HIS expense. Get real.
 
My guess is the Elk were there first.. *GONG*.

Try first grade again !!!

-Moosie

People, they thin' I don't know a Buttload of Crap About the Gosple, but I do. (Nacho Libre)
 
RE: Landowner Compensaton - Good/Bad???

LAST EDITED ON Jan-06-07 AT 09:19PM (MST)[p]>a3dhunter,
>
>If you want to get eliminate
>grazing on National Forest then
>get your check book out
>and start buying grazing permits.
>We had some for sale
>a few years ago and
>I would rather have sold
>them to you then the
>guy that has them now
>and is stuck fixing fence
>several times a year so
>he can keep the cattle
>in his allotment and then
>gathering them back up after
>the elk knock it down
>again only to be told
>he needs to have them
>off a month early because
>of the drought. Grazing permitties
>have spent years making ponds,
>catch basins and developing springs
> for cattle to water
>which also benefits wildlife. So
>go ahead and get rid
>of grazing permits and let
>us know how the range-land
>and wildlife are doing in
>20 years.
>
>What do you want the State
>to do with all the
>Ag. land you want them
>to buy? Who is going
>to change sprinklers,cut and bale
>hay?
>
>Now to the original compensation question.
>Our family owns some farm
>land and at times deer
>and elk have caused problems.
>Last Monday I spent two
>hours cleaning up a stack
>of hay the deer tore
>up and trampled. Yes it
>was an inconvenience but while
>I was cleaning it up
>I couldn't help but think
>about the winter we are
>having and the negative effect
>it is going to have
>on what I consider a
>good fawn crop this year.
>Not once did I think
>about who is going to
>compensate me for it. Depending
>on the circumstance I don't
>think 8' fences are the
>answer, all that does is
>give the problem to your
>neighbor. I don't think giving
>tags for compensation would be
>a good. Every farmer or
>rancher in the State would
>all the sudden have crop
>damage. Believe me I would
>love to have an elk
>tag but I'll just keep
>the hard way and draw
>one.


Antler1- sounds to me like if we had more landowners like you this wouldn't be an issue. I personally appreciate your willingness to just take care of the mess and if I lived in your area I would vollunteer to help out. I think that is where sportsman could step up and help the farmers. The non resident hunters are already footing the bills, why don't the residents step up to the plate and increase resident fees?

I will agree that some permittees have done some good in building catch basins and such, but the other thing I think of is how many times do you see pictures of deer or elk hung up in a fence. I have also seen areas where the vegetation is gone because of how many cows are up there on national forest. Maybee there would be deer and elk in this area if there was anything to feed on. What happened to being able to drink from a clear cold mountain stream? Now we have to purify it for fear of what we will get from drinking it. That is not from deer and elk, it's cattle. I don't have a problem with a few ranchers running a couple hundred head in the mountains druring summer, but when you have guys running 5000 head on National Forest land or BLM land year 10 months out of the year, why reimburse him for those two months where his cattle are at home and there are elk and deer there at that time?
I have a little more sympathy for guys that are losing crops and can't benefit from grazing leases or guys who have to do cleanup over a mess that the wildlife made of a haystack.
I can see paying for fences around haystacks or for paying actual verified crop damages within reason. But there are a lot of guys taking this for all it is worth. The ranchers I have spoke with in Colorado are willing to take anything handed to them for damages but they are not the ones whining about getting more money. Just like the tag brokers, they will work within the system and take the money that they can.
I don't have all the answers and I don't want someone to think that I do. I will continue to learn more with each day. All I have now is an opinion, which I have to admit--it could be very wrong! Good hunting to all of you;-)
 
There are a few that are in favor of these landowner compensation tags, fair enough, everyone has their opinions. Can I ask those that have posted on this thread whether they have even benefited financially from the use of these tags or frequently purchase these tags? Is this a fair question?
 
mtmiller - I think the question is fair. I have purchased several LO tags in Colorado for myself. I would like to think that I am giving something back to the landowner that supports these wildlife throughout the winter. If you look at the LO maps in Colorado, most of the winter range is on private land. Hopefully the LO is using the money to repair his fences and subsidize his income. Also, if you are a landowner the property taxes are a huge expense. That is why so many landowners are selling out. Sure, they are making a fortune off of their land but if they kept it, they can't afford the property taxes. I know of several cases like this. I do support compensating LO's but I also feel that you should get hunting opporutnities on the land you bought the tag for.


It's always an adventure!!!
 
I didn't have time to read through all the posts above but read one post about wintering animals. One thing that holds true in many areas in Colo is golf courses and housing developments are taking over much of the wintergrounds. Many of these developements are built right up to the public land boundary and if it wasn't for public land there wouldn't be a whole lot of wintering grounds.

As sportsman and conservationists I believe it is our responsibility to preserve a lot of this land or it will be gone forever. Many farmers and ranchers are selling their land to giant corporations and we are loosing lots of critical wildlife habitat every year.

I would much rather see my license $ or other modes of funding going directly back to wildlife rather than those that seem to want to put it in the pocket and profit from it! A lot of us need to re-think our priorities!
 
I got 14,145 acres up by Hanna, and the more game on my property the better I like it. I don't need compensated for anything.
 
What keeps the LOs from benefitting from vouchers for years and then STILL selling their land in the end to developers?

How about this: they have to sign a contract, like a conservation easement in MT, that says the land can never be developed in order to recieve vouchers. All of you that are for the system talk about the future, the future, the future, but they can still sell in the future so the vouchers only help us in the present. T

he current system only commercializes our critters which is why so many are against it. Use the money to make WMAs or make em sign a contract, but don't use the money to feed some cows because the LOs already recieve my tax dollars in subsidaries.
 
None of the land is ag land it is all sage brush, guakies, pines, and buck brush. It is not guided out. Reservation land borders it on the south and east and its forest land on the north an west. If your lucky you can catch the bulls slipping of the reservation.
 
The fact you have no ag land is the difference, animals eating your sage brush doesn't affect your pocket book. The LO in question has ag land with elk eating his wallet.
 
>The fact you have no ag
>land is the difference, animals
>eating your sage brush doesn't
>affect your pocket book. The
>LO in question has ag
>land with elk eating his
>wallet.

Up in post 25 Founder told me crop land was not the problem. So if animals eating your sagebrush isn't affecting the pocketbook, what is the issue?
 
"What keeps the LOs from benefitting
from vouchers for years and
then STILL selling their land
in the end to developers?"

old-man, a lot of this land has been in "the family" for generations. The "new generation" doesn't know how to farm or has gone to college and got an education because farming doesn't pay. They inherited this land and now all it is is a tax burden so they sell it and make a fortune. What would you do, pay taxes on land and barely scrape by or sell out to developers and retire a millionare?


"...but don't use
the money to feed some
cows because the LOs already
recieve my tax dollars in
subsidaries."

It's a damn good thing that farmers are subsidized in times of need because, if not, that Wendy's hamburger you eat all the time would be $10 a patty.


It's always an adventure!!!
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-07-07 AT 07:50AM (MST)[p]>The fact you have no ag
>land is the difference, animals
>eating your sage brush doesn't
>affect your pocket book. The
>LO in question has ag
>land with elk eating his
>wallet.

Then why do the pictures show fenced sagebrush? Maybe they could have saved some money and only fenced the ag. fields.
 
>There are a few that are
>in favor of these landowner
>compensation tags, fair enough, everyone
>has their opinions. Can
>I ask those that have
>posted on this thread whether
>they have even benefited financially
>from the use of these
>tags or frequently purchase these
>tags? Is this a
>fair question?


I have never sold LO tags, bought LO tags, or uses Lo tags. If the money went directly to a LO and access was granted to the private land, I would not be against buying one though.
 
Why don't we raise the price of all deer tags by $50 then take all the added revenue and write the landowners a check based on actual use by wildlife. Of course they would have to open their gates if we are going to pay them.
 
>old-man, a lot of this
>land has been in "the
>family" for generations. The
>"new generation" doesn't know how
>to farm or has gone
>to college and got an
>education because farming doesn't pay.
> They inherited this land
>and now all it is
>is a tax burden so
>they sell it and make
>a fortune. What would
>you do, pay taxes on
>land and barely scrape by
>or sell out to developers
>and retire a millionare?

Nobody's gonna be a millionare on vouchers, so if they wanna be a millionare, they will probably just sell their land anyway


>It's a damn good thing that
>farmers are subsidized in times
>of need because, if not,
>that Wendy's hamburger you eat
>all the time would be
>$10 a patty.

Or I could just eat venison
 
Moosie, stick to rap and dancing it suits you well or maybe we should just bust a cap on some Land owners if they don't feed our wildlife.
Sounds like your still riding the short bus. Do us all a favor and take your prozac.

Mike
 
Somebody has their B.S. sniffer on high alert.

I guess I'm not the only one not swayed by disingenuous arguements about the poor rancher barely keeping his head above water and the vouchers being the only thing standing between him and the poor house.

Don't worry though. Our public land hunting is still for sale to the highest bidder. But instead of the tag-broker, now its the rancher holding the auction for his vouchers that are good for public land unit-wide, and this is after he gets off the phone selling his trespass hunts for the holders of P.L.O.(private land only) tags also issued in the draw. Then in the winter he can get another check from sportsmen issued through the D.O.W. for crop damage to his unprotected hay stacks and stubblefield pastures.
 
BUTSPY....................... SPARE ME YOUR B.S!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
HEY SKUNK$HIT!!!

WHERE THE HELL YOU BEEN???

HOW WAS THE BIG GAME HUNTS IN YOUR NECK OF THE WOODS???

THE ONLY bobcat!!! :D :D :D
 
I'm a hermit and don't come around that much. The season was great, what about you? I hope you're still keeping things stirred up around here.
 
SKUNK$HIT!!!

IT HAD ITS UPS & DOWNS!!!

THE OLD BONES ARE GETTING BRITTLE IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN???

I DON'T STIR IT UP MUCH ANYMORE!!!

JUST WHEN SOMEBODY STARTS THEIR CRAP WITH ME FIRST!!!

THE ONLY bobcat!!! :D :D :D
 
mtmiller asks "There are a few that are in favor of these landowner compensation tags, fair enough, everyone has their opinions. Can I ask those that have posted on this thread whether they have even benefited financially from the use of these tags or frequently purchase these tags? Is this a fair question?"

There are reasons people are super-passionate about keeping them and I think your question is appropriate and rhetorical. Those who stand to benefit the most seem to want to keep them the most. When's the last time you saw some landowner/rancher on the internet lobbying for the vouchers.

Skunkterd-"Butspy?" Is that the best you can do? I could spare you the B.S. but I'm afraid the "strain would be more than you could bear." Gimmee some of the good stuff you've been saving up!
 
proutdoors "Your guess is WRONG on this one. Go back to pre-school!!! "

cabinfever "Moosie, stick to rap and dancing it suits you well or maybe we should just bust a cap on some Land owners if they don't feed our wildlife.
Sounds like your still riding the short bus. Do us all a favor and take your prozac.
Mike "

I'll be the first to Admit I'm wrong when I am. You guys proved without a Doubt in my head with your Response that I was wrong and I was Schooled by you too. The only thing I'm left wondering, Although you did make good points.... Is How long were the Ranchers in the Foothills wintering ground BEFORE the deer and elk were using it. I'm a simple man, jsut round it to the nearest year or five. I would like to graduate from Preschool, Educate me ohh wise ones. Thanx in advance !!!


-Moosie

People, they thin' I don't know a Buttload of Crap About the Gosple, but I do. (Nacho Libre)
 
As stated before, the elk in THIS area were introduced about twenty years ago. Now admit you were wrong and I'll pass you all the way to the Third Grade.

And you are welcome.
 
Just for clarification: were they introduced or were they RE-introduced? Never were there before?

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
Mossie, I'm not wanting to get in a pi$$ing match with you or anyone else, but private property is private property wether it is 1/4 acre with a home on it or a 4000 acre ranch. If your neighbor backed into your new fence and knocked it over, isn't it fair that he compensate you to repair the damages. Or is he not obligated to do so because he moved in 5 years before you did.

Mike
 
>If your neighbor backed into
>your new fence and knocked
>it over, isn't it fair
>that he compensate you to
>repair the damages. Or is
>he not obligated to do
>so because he moved in
>5 years before you did.


If your neighbor was a bull elk then the answer is NO!!!

Animals are animals, always have been animals, and will continue to be animals. People have understood and lived with that forever. Why is it suddenly a problem???

Why do you think that EVERYONE should be compensated for EVERYTHING?

Am I the only old man wondering if everybody in support of compensating the LOs is a LIBERAL???
 
The exact OPPOSITE my friend, you can't get much more conservative than me. That is why I say let him CAPITALIZE on the products on HIS land. Let him supply the demand of the elk that get their critical winter feed for their monster racks from the LO's crops. I, as a CONSERVATIVE CAPIALIST say let the PRIVATE property owner profit from his PRPOERTY. Otherwise the LO will sell to others who will utilize the land more profitable by developing it. Then the elk will really benefit won't they? If you are a conservative as you imply you should reconize the RIGHTS of a private property owner, and allow him to utilize his land and not be punished for having land that elk survive on, and then the public profits from and the LO loses money from the elk being on HIS property.

PRO
 
omh,

If it is a bull elk then yes. Here is how I see it, if the herds are expanded and numbers are up to satisfy the sportsman's wants in terms of opportunity and quality, then the LO should be compensated. Can anyone tell me how many more elk roam the west now than in 1960 or 1970? My guess is the numbers are way up and everyone is winning except the LO.
 
That's how I see it. Sportsmen and sportsmen groups are always trying to increase elk and deer numbers. In Utah, we have more elk than ever before. We are also trying to increase our deer herd. We shouldn't expect the private landowners to just EXCEPT it and feed and support the GROWTH of OUR wildlife herds for free.

Colorado is no different. They work very hard to maintain a deer and elk herd while winter range decreases. In order to maintain the same number of wildlife, on less winter range, more wildlife must utilize the lesser winter range. That means even if herds do not increase, but remain steady, the private landowner is wintering a greater number of game on his property than before.

With winter range being eaten up every year by $500k homes and golf courses, wildlife either dies or finds another area to winter. I personally would rather see them welcomed by another landowner to feed in his fields, rather than doe tags issued to kill off the excess of deer.
If our herds are reduced, we all lose. I would rather give a landowner 1 tag for feeding 100 head of deer all winter and have 4 more available to the public, than to kill those 100 deer and have less tags for the public and none for the landowner.

Over the next 40 years of my hunting life, winter range across the West will continue to shrink. We have a choice, find a way to feed our wildlife on less available acres, or see them vanish.
I believe that if we reward the private landowners of the West for wintering our herds, they will tolerate the sure increase of game on their lands in the future.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
 
Founder, you touched on an important point. The destruction of winter range is one of the greatest threats to big game herds throughout the west. Giving money to landowners in the form of vouchers is not the best way for hunters to protect winter range. Donating money to organizations which buy conservation easements in important winter range areas will yield a much greater return on the money in the long run.
 
We should do BOTH. We MUST work with Landowners or say goodbye to a large percentage of wildlife in several areas. That is fact not fiction.

PRO
 
I, as
>a CONSERVATIVE CAPIALIST say let
>the PRIVATE property owner profit
>from his PRPOERTY.
>PRO
Pro, are you saying the property owner has some ownership of the critter?
 
A couple commments.

The amount of money that the landowners are being compensated for having deer and elk on their ranch is not going to "save the ranch".

Thats a fact.

Lets say a landowner has 5 good permits that he can sell for a grand a pop. Thats 5k. Sure, its a nice easy 5K for the landowner, but that isnt going to keep the guy from selling to another landowner or developer.

The age old, "Well, compensating them for wintering wildlife will keep them from selling to a developer" is a big bunch of BS.

In case nobody has been paying attention in the last 20 years...having wildlife ON YOUR PROPERTY...increases the value. Pick up any land real-estate guide and you'll find pictures of land with elk, deer, antelope on it...followed by something like this, "2,000 acres with 2 streams...elk and deer present on property...perfect location for a hunting cabin...all yours for 5K/acre".

The bottom line is, any ranch that is operating on a razors edge where a few thousand from a LO voucher is keeping them in business...is a business that isnt long for world.

The answer is not to waste money on uncertain futures pandering to landowners. The answer is just like Oak said, securing habitat either through out-right purchases or by long-term easements.

One last thing...if all the tag brokers are really concerned about wildlife and the Land Owners...why are they MAKING money on the peddling of LO vouchers? Shouldnt they be giving those profits to the broke landowners, G&F agencies, and conservation groups to secure wildlife habitat?

Nope, they put that coin right straight in their pocket...so they can afford new ATV's, new trucks, fancy rifles, range finders, and all the other crap people cant live without.

These are the exact reasons why putting a price on wildlife is not good for anyone involved...mainly the wildlife. Commercialization of wildlife is a travesty.
 
No, I am saying he has ownership over his property, if wildlife are eating his crops thatare how he makes his living he ought to be able to recoup lose loses. If he chooses to harvest hay, corn, trees, or other resources available on his land he should be able to at the least recover his damages from the animals roaming the hills that you and I benefit from. Give him a few tags instead of reimbusments. It is true a few tags wont make him rich, but it may be enough to keep him from closing, selling off the land. Most landowners enjoy the wildlife, they just want a little help to make up the out of pocket costs. I don't get the hostility toward those who are the NUMBER ONE factor for the future of wildlife.

PRO
 
You lost me. Now you say he should be able to "recoup his losses", but your prior post said he should "profit"?
 
But the only guarantee is money being spent on, like mentioned above, conservation easments and WMAs. I'm all for preserving winter range, but the way I look at it is this:

Compensating landowners is like paying rent. You throw money away for a month just to live. When you move away, you have nothing to show for it but a roof over your head for the past amount of time. If a landowner does suddenly decide to develop his land, what then? The critters had a place to live for a while, but that means nothing now. The point is ITS TEMPORARY!

Conservaion easments/WMAs are like buying a house. You are still paying out every month, but you actually have something when it's time to move. Your money went towards something, not just a temporary roof. The point is ITS PERMANENT!

I'd rather buy a house than rent, how about you?

If it really is like you say:

1. landowners do it because they have to
2. They like the wildlife
3. They are on the verge of bankruptcy

then why not conservation easments?

For those of you who don't know what they are, the state pays the LO a large amount of money in order to buy habitat for critters. (That sounds like what all of you pro-compensation guys are for) And inturn, the landowner must sign a contract that transfers with the property that says it will not be developed EVER!!! (That sounds better than what you pro-compensation guys are talking about)

So why not???? Because conditions 1, 2, or 3 mentioned above are not totally true and the landowners are milking the system.

I say, look for the better returns in the long run, because they will produce a better pay off for us in the end. Short-term compensatio only solves a short-term problem.
 
proutdoors,

If you think landowner vouchers are the long-term savior of MY PUBLIC wildlife...you're in for a real shock and an even bigger disappointment.

The ONLY 2 ways to ensure long-term survival of wildlife is to purchase habitat...in particular winter range, and put into public ownership or secure private holdings with legal and binding conservation easements.

To put your faith into landowner vouchers to secure habitat is foolish and short-sighted. You arent getting any long-term guarantee of any type.

Its ridiculous to peddle MY PUBLIC wildlife to a landowner, that on a whim, a feeling, or the prospect of being rich...can just up and sell his land to a developer. It makes more sense for me to save my money (or donate to RMEF, etc.) and purchase his land when he decides its time to become a millionaire, move to Mexico, live on fish tacos and foo-foo drinks with umbrellas in the glass. Either that or try to pursuade the landowner to enter into a conservation easement.

I dont want the future of MY PUBLIC wildlife to lie in the hands of fickle landowners.

My money and effort is better spent on long-term solutions rather than short-term greed of brokers and fussy landowners.
 
old-man-of-the-hills,

Great post and I agree 110%.

The only thing I'd add to the conservation easements is that the landowner also sees a significant reduction in property taxes as well.

Too bad more people dont understand what the real solutions are...thankfully enough are starting to "get it"...
 
Bottom line is some of the best units have a lot of private property on them. If you don't allow the landowners to make a profit on the game that inhabit their land they will eventually sell to developers and the game on those units will have to find other places to go. You know as well as I do that development has taken up some of the prime winter range all over the country (especially in the west). I agree with the above post that our conservation groups do and should purchase critical winter range tracts to help maintain healthy herds. I also think it's foolish to think that it can be done without the landowner. The landowner should be allowed to make a profit. I also think that the hunter should have access to his property if he purchases one of his permits.

It's always an adventure!!!
 
Good luck in having a LO sign any papers for any kind of easement. People do not like being told what they can do with THEIR land. I find it hard to believe that any LO would ever refuse to sell and be rich based on the wants of a few hunters. I know a few farmers that have taken the money when they got older. How would any of you like it if someone told you that you could not take out your 401? How do sportsman keep THEIR wildlife off of someone ELSES land? I guess it would be up to the state and sportsman to keep what is THEIRS on THEIR public lands?
 
Here in Utah, we do use money generated from "Conservation Tags" exactly as some here are saying we should. I like what that money does for wildlife. But, as you all know, there are those who are against those tags too!! Doesn't matter what you do, there are always those people who think they are getting the shaft. Everyone wants something for nothing....in this case it's wildlife.
Whether its a voucher broker or a conservation group, lots of people HATE the fact that someone might make a dollar for their time.

It would be great if sportsmen could just buy all the land, but our $40.00 license fees just aren't enough to do it. Colorado does not offer Conservation Tags other than the statewide tags. They generate a few hundred thousand a year. That MIGHT buy sportsmen a few acres. Hardly enough to make any difference. I don't think we will ever see the day when sportsmen can purchase all available winter range.

Until we can find a way to make things happen in a different manner, I think we do need to "Pay The Rent" to landowners and hope that they will support additional wildlife on their lands as their neighbors sale out to developers.....it's the ONLY way to support current herd numbers. When we find a better way, we go with the better way.

I'll be the first to admit that the Colorado system is not perfect. Some landowners are getting more than they deserve, others less. I would have no problem seeing a cash incentive to landowners for supporting wildlife, and allow the state or non-profit organizations to generate the money via voucher sales to fund the program. It really doesn't matter how we "Encourage landowners to support additional wildlife", we just need to do it.

Again, landowners and sportsmen have the choice. When land is developed, the game that previously wintered on the land, needs to go somewhere else to winter, OR die. If the neighboring ranchers already feel that they have too many deer and elk on their land, the Game Department will issue tags to kill the excess deer or elk. However, maybe if sportsmen are helping to support the landowner financially, he will find a way to maintain the additional animals.
Fewer animals = Less tags for sportsmen and less $$$ for landowner
More animals = More tags for sportsmen and more $$$ for landowner
We need to work WITH landowners, not against them by asking them to support OUR wildlife for free.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
 
>Good luck in having a LO
>sign any papers for any
>kind of easement. People do
>not like being told what
>they can do with THEIR
>land.

Uhhh...there's already BEEN luck doing that. And nobody is "telling" them what they can do. Most LOs WANT their land to continue being farmed/ranched on, so an easment is right up their alley!

>How would any of you
>like it if someone told
>you that you could not
>take out your 401?

Nobody is telling them that they can't sell their land.
 
If you sign that's exactly what happens. The state runs your property. I've seen it. You're right about farmers not wanting to sell their land and keep it in agricultural crops. It's the inheritants that sell it. It's not usually the farmer/rancher that cares about the millions, it's his greedy kids! Those are the ones that you have to worry about.



It's always an adventure!!!
 
AIN'T IT FUNNY!!!

ONLY ITS NOT FUNNY,NOT AT ALL FUNNY!!!

THE OLD TIME RANCHER/FARMER HAS WORKED HIS TAIL OFF ALL OF HIS LIFE SCRAPING BY IT SEEMS AND MORE HARD WORK WITH MORE HOURS THAN ANYBODY IT SEEMS!!!

YA,HE COULD OF SOLD OUT & SIT BACK THE REST OF HIS LIFE BUT HE DIDN'T!!!

HE HAD MORE PRIDE THAN THAT!!!

THEN HE PASSES ON,(A SAD THING)AND THE KIDS LIST THE PROPERTY/RANCH FOR SALE BEFORE THEY GET HIM LAID TO REST,WTF???

ITS ALL ABOUT MONEY/GREED THESE DAYS!!!

WHERE THE HELL HAS THE AMERICAN PRIDE WENT???

THE ONLY bobcat THINKING IF THINGS CHANGE AS MUCH IN THE NEXT 50 YEARS AS THEY HAVE IN THE LAST 50 YEARS WE ARE IN DEEP DOO DOO!!!
 
Sorry omh, but if you sign an easement your hands are tied. You will be told what to do to satisfy the easement. Sportsmen are better off to rent in this case.
 
Many times the terms of the easement are exactly what the landowners intentions were in the first place. Happens all the time. There was a very large easement aquired by FWP in Montana a couple years ago near where I live. Some of the terms - do not bust sod and farm, do not break up and sell small parcels, etc... Hell, the landowner didn't intend to do that anyway, so win-win.
 
>Sorry omh, but if you sign
>an easement your hands are
>tied. You will be told
>what to do to satisfy
>the easement. Sportsmen are better
>off to rent in this
>case.
I disagree with the rental theory with the points others have already mentioned.

You also make it sound as if the LO are being strong armed. Not the case, these easements are voluntary and the terms are in black/white. If the LO doesn't like the terms, he walks away. I think you would be surprised how well they work in MT for sportsmen, landowners and critters.
 
I still say we should work WITH landowners instead of just letting them spin in the wind. IF they chose to get easements then great, but who are you to tell them what to do with THEIR land? Last I checked here in America we VALUE private ownership. I agree conservation projects do great things, but that doesn't mean we kick the Landowner in the nards and say just be happy you 'get' to see critters on your land. "Wow isnt that neat Mildred, them there elk are eating our haystacks again, isn't that neat". Short change the landowners and reap what you don't sow when the land is gone.

PRO
 

Similar threads

M
Nevada Elk Incentive or Damage Crop Tags?
Replies
12
Views
1k
wstrntines
wstrntines
N
Benefits of E Plus
Replies
93
Views
4k
MrRogers
MrRogers
Calbuck
CA predation
Replies
43
Views
1k
Skykarp
Skykarp

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

big buck.jpg
Big Bull
Big Buck Sheds
Amaaaaazzzzzing.....
20210904_104624.jpg
Big Velvet!
6.jpg
3C83B066-0DBB-4805-96E6-A466BE2AF0FC.jpeg
IMG-4857.jpg
IMG_0780.jpeg
deer (2).jpg
20200915_090836.jpg
Back
Top Bottom