Landowner Compensation - Good/Bad???

Restrictions from the easement I mentioned earlier.

1. The removal, control, or manipulation of sagebrush or native grassland by any means is prohibited, including but not limited to the burning, plowing, chemical treatment, or physical removal. The grazing of livestock or other activities allowed under Landowner?s rights would not be considered removal, control, or manipulation of sagebrush or removal of native grassland.

2. The legal or de facto subdivision of the Land for any purpose is prohibited, except as provided in this paragraph... Landowner may enter into an exchange of land with the state or federal governments; and such exchange will not be considered a subdivision...For purposes of this Easement, a subdivision means a division of land or land so divided that creates more than one distinct parcel, in order that the title to or possession of the parcels may be sold, rented, leased.... Further, the sale, rent, lease, or other conveyance of one or more parts of a building, structure, or other improvement situated on one or more parcels of land is considered a subdivision under this Easement. The prohibitions against subdivision contained in this paragraph also apply to the sale, rental, lease, or other conveyance of the Land or any portion of the Land subdivided prior to the grant of this Easement to the Department.

3. Landowner shall use its best efforts to assure the retention of any and all water rights appurtenant to the Land as are necessary to preserve and protect the conservation values of the Land and will not transfer...

4. The removal of timber (live or dead) by any means is prohibited.

5. The harvesting of any native grass or seed species by haying or mowing is prohibited on native rangeland. This prohibition does not apply to the haying of crested wheatgrass, other non-native species, or cropland fields that are documented in the Easement Baseline Report.

6. No cultivation, digging, plowing, disking, or farming may occur on the Land, except: (a) fields of cropland or CRP, (b) chisel plowing of club moss on non-native fields, (c) reseeding of crested wheatgrass or CRP fields to native species. Cropland, non-native fields, CRP, and crested wheatgrass fields are documented in the Easement Baseline Report.

7. The draining, filling, dredging, leveling, burning, ditching, or diking of the natural wetland areas described in Exhibit E, attached to the Easement Document is prohibited.

8. The control, removal, or manipulation of any willows or riparian vegetation in coulees, drainages, water bodies, or natural wetland areas by any means is prohibited, except as needed for the ordinary course of maintaining fences, ditches, or stock water ponds or reservoirs provided for and allowed under this Easement.

9. The renting or leasing of, or sale of access to the Land to others for hunting or winter recreational purposes whether or not as a part of a commercial outfitting or guiding business, is prohibited.

10. The exploration for or development and extraction of minerals, coal, bentonite, soils, coal bed methane, or other materials by any surface mining method is prohibited, except Landowner may remove or excavate gravel for road improvements on the Land.

11. The construction or placement of any structure, building, or improvement of any kind is prohibited, other than as expressly allowed in this Easement.

12. The establishment or maintenance of any commercial feedlot is prohibited.

13. The use of the Land in connection with an alternative livestock ranch, game bird farm, shooting preserve, fur farm, menagerie or zoo, or the ownership, leasing keeping, holding, capture, propagation, release, introduction, or trade in any animal that may pose a threat to any mammalian, avian, reptilian, aquatic or amphibian wildlife species, whether or not indigenous to Montana, is prohibited.

14. Any commercial or industrial use of or activity on the Land is prohibited, other than those uses related agriculture permitted by this Easement;

15. The processing, dumping, storage or other disposal of wastes, refuse and debris on the Land is prohibited, except for nonhazardous and nontoxic materials generated by activities permitted on the Land.

Needless to say, he was very happy to accept $945,000 for continuing business as usual. Wouldn't exactly say he got kicked in the balls or forced sign something he didn't feel comfortable about. Obviously not every LO is interested in these types of easement, but there are plenty that are.

I guess if we want to benefit wildlife and recreation opportunities long-term this is the way to go. If we want to piece meal every year, let's continue to pay "rent".
 
The above easement pretty much defines working WITH a landowner. Obviously the LO was involved with the terms and the two groups came to an agreement.

Tell them what to do with their land? BS, if the landowner truly felt this way he would not sign on the dotted line.

I know this land will still be protected 20 years from now, can you say the same for lands that are allocated compensation tags on an annual basis?
 
mtmiller - That sounds great, but how are sportsmen going to fund enough easements to make a difference? I have no problem paying extra money for a tag and having some allocated to fund such things. HOWEVER, the vast majority of sportsmen will not support ANY kind of additional fees.

The fact is, our trophy wildlife is how we will need to fund their preservation. I hate to say it, but I think we will need to sell some of our best hunting opportunities to fund programs that benefit all of our game animals. Sportsmen are just too reluctant to pull the money from their own wallets to float the bill.

That easement you mentioned above cost nearly a million dollars. How acres did that secure?

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
 
15,157 acres

I disagree that "trophy wildlife" is our only outlet to fund preservation.

I also disagree that sportsmen are too reluctant pull $$$. Lots of wildlife organizations out there with pots full of money to help secure habitat and with matching state $$$, that can go a long way for long-term habitat protection. ME two cents.
 
Mtmiller, seems you have the answers here. kick cattle off federal land. Then you'll ##### when you have to pay 12 dollars for your big mac at mcdonalds. Did hunters pave this country or farmers? enlighten me please..
 
Whoa, 1hit, where did Miller saying anything about kicking ranchers off federal land? Did you just make that part up?

It's not on topic so maybe you can start a new one, but:
What percentage of US beef production occurs on federal land? Enlighten me please...
 
"mtmiller - That sounds great, but how are sportsmen going to fund enough easements to make a difference? I have no problem paying extra money for a tag and having some allocated to fund such things. HOWEVER, the vast majority of sportsmen will not support ANY kind of additional fees."

Founder, How do you know, If presented in the right way, sportsmen wouldnt support additional fees. I think you might find the average Utah hunter has just about had a gut full of turning our wildlife into an expensive commodity.
 
Yeah your right. wasnt him. got it from the 1st post and read more all through it. Its been said here that hunters do more for conservation than landowners. When is the last time you saw a land owner tearing up his ground on a four wheeler? Have you seen what 80 head of hungry elk do to a alfalfa field? I know, how bout if bring over a couple hungry horses and you just pasture them on your lawn for a few weeks.
 
Come on, everytime a license increase is proposed the vast majority of hunters cry out that "it's becoming a rich mans sport". I'm sure UDWR and other game agencies would not be hurting for money if sportsmen had no issue with paying more for licenses.

mtmiller - If you really believe what you said...."Lots of wildlife organizations out there with pots full of money to help secure habitat and with matching state $$$", then you need to get a little more involved and get educated on HOW MUCH money groups have and HOW they have what they do have.
Here in Utah, wildlife organizations do have some money to work with, but ONLY because of the tags they sell. You are arguing that we should not be selling these tags. If we don't, then we have no money to do anything.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
 
How are Landowners Compensated back East for feeding the hordes of Whitetails? You add up evey Deer, Elk, and Pronghorn in Colorado and we dont even have half the number of animals a little dinky Eastern State has that is only 1/3 the land area of Colorado.

Just curious....
 
Mule deer herds are struggling, I don't think whitetail herds are in bad shape.
If western states were already at objective levels for elk and mule deer, then maybe we could afford to kill them off instead of compensating landowners to support them.

Killing them off....I think that is where we are now in certain places. Often, wildlife biologists recommend doe tags and additional buck tags everytime a new golf course or subdivision is built on winter range. Once the herd is within the "NEW" unit herd objective, tags are cut, and there ends up being less tags than before in order to maintain the same quality as before. That means sportsmen lose.

As winter range gets developed, sportsmen are going to have to find a way to get more out of what is left in order to maintain the same opportunity that we have today. The same number of animals will need to utilize LESS winter range.

It would be great if we could buy up every acre of winter range in the West, but that is impossible. Sportsmen will never donate that much money to the cause. We can buy only a little. The rest will have to be owned by private individuals and we need to work with them so that they will managed their land in a manner that supports our wildlife.

We can expect it for free for only so long. Eventually it will be us who feel the pain as tags become fewer and fewer.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
 
>Its been said here
>that hunters do more for
>conservation than landowners.

They do. Landowners may own the land that feeds some game, but sportsman are the ones who care about their protection. If landowners had it their way, then cattle would be at the maximum holding capacity and graze everything to the dirt and trample streambanks to mud on land anywhere

When is
>the last time you saw
>a land owner tearing up
>his ground on a four
>wheeler?

When was the last time you watched a round up? Because they don't use horses anymore other than on the dude ranches. Four wheelers are the new horse, just ask a rancher :)
 
>Mule deer herds are struggling, I
>don't think whitetail herds are
>in bad shape.

Whitetails aren't in bad shape, in fact they are in too good of shape in many places. But how you responded proves that you are missing the point made about whitetails and land owners. The whitetails, if anything because of their surplus population, are more destructive than elk/mule deer, so please Founder, enlighten us as to how the poor defenseless landowners compensate for the deer back east, because somehow they survive.
 
>>Its been said here
>>that hunters do more for
>>conservation than landowners.
>
>They do. Landowners may own
>the land that feeds some
>game, but sportsman are the
>ones who care about their
>protection. If landowners had
>it their way, then cattle
>would be at the maximum
>holding capacity and graze everything
>to the dirt and trample
>streambanks to mud on land
>anywhere
>
>When is
>>the last time you saw
>>a land owner tearing up
>>his ground on a four
>>wheeler?
>
>When was the last time you
>watched a round up?
>Because they don't use horses
>anymore other than on the
>dude ranches. Four wheelers
>are the new horse, just
>ask a rancher :)


Its been my experience that private landowners take MUCH better care of their land than the general public does on public ground. In fact, theres really no comparison.

You made a statement about how landowners would graze their ground down to dirt and that has got to be one of the most rediculous statements I have read on this entire thread. The vast majority of landowners manage their ground for the long term. There are a few exceptions to the rule but generally speaking the guy that has scratched out a living on his land will not abuse it.

Drum
 
Huntsonora,

I think you are right about the landowners not wanting to graze THEIR land down to bare dirt. They do manage THEIR land for the long term. Besides, why would they let their cattle destroy THEIR land, when they can just let their cattle destroy OUR PUBLIC LAND.


Im curious, how many of the guys on this post who are so PRO LANDOWNER, are landowners themselves or directly benefit from these land owner vouchers???? I think that has to do A LOT with how peoples opinion on this subject is formed, how much it directly affects them for the good or bad. I for one think mtmiller and ColoradoOak are right on on this topic!
 
Well, you know that I benefit from landowner vouchers and tags in nearly every state because I have advertisers who sell them and some who buy them for clients.

But I can tell you, I'm not arguing that there should or shouldn't be landowner vouchers or tags. What I am arguing is that landowners have a choice to support OUR wildlife or not support it, and I think we need to encourage them to support it.
I don't really think it matters how, we just need to do it.

The only other option besides vouchers and tags to encourage landowners to support our wildlife is by direct cash payouts tax advantages, funded by the sale of Conservation Tags.
Unforunately, as soon as a state agency opens a can of worms like that, every special interest group will want a piece of that pie.

Game agencies have determined that the best way to encourage and reward landowners for supporting OUR wildlife is to give them a hunting opportunity that they can do with what they want.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
 
>What I am
>arguing is that landowners have
>a choice to support OUR
>wildlife or not support it,
>and I think we need
>to encourage them to support
>it.
>I don't really think it matters
>how, we just need to
>do it.

Doubt there are any arguements there.

>Game agencies have determined that the
>best way to encourage and
>reward landowners for supporting OUR
>wildlife is to give them
>a hunting opportunity that they
>can do with what they
>want.

Pretty broad brush you are painting with on that one.
 
I am neither a landowner nor do I profit from landowner tags, except as a SPORTSMAN who benefits from more/better wildlife as a direct result of animals living part of their lives on private property. Old Man made a comment about those who are in favor of allowing landowners to benefit from wlidlife on their property as liberals, I say those who are ANTI private property RIGHTS are more to the left than me. Amazing how you come to the conclusion the only way someone could possibly disagree with you on this is if they are getting fat in the wallet from this. Kind of arrogant don't you think?

PRO
 
Yes, pro you are right. The government supporting individuals is sooooo not liberal, what was I thinking. Welfare....didn't Regan invent that?

Please show me were in the Constitution it says that people have the individual right to expect money from the government for any reason a lawyer can invent. I have mice that live in my garage. Should I get money too? What about when a bird poops on my windshield?
 
I am a long time reader, first time poster on this site.

My family is a rancher / landowner in North West Colorado, we have 13,000 acres in a prime unit with hundreds of elk and many deer that are on our property most of the year. In the past 10 years we have gotten 4, count them......four...., land owner vouchers. We did not sell any of them, we used them in the family. Elk, deer and antelope do damage to our fences, crops, all of our property! We are not crying for money from anyone, it would be nice to get a tag or two a year to do with what we please - we would use them, not sell them.

Land owners Improving the bottom line by selling their vouchers? If we sold every voucher we had we wouldn't even come close to paying the taxes on the place for one year!

We usually do not allow hunters on our property - the biggest reason is trespassing. We are over run with trespassing SOB's. They pull out our gates, run over our fences to get in. This last year they cut our locks off too! If they would take a minute to ask what they could do for us, in order to hunt, they very well may be granted access. But they never ask, they destroy our property and trespass.

Something does need to be done to be fair, some landowners in different areas receive many vouchers, yet others rarely see any.

As far as the fellow that said "the CDOW bending over backwards to help land owners", obviousely you are not a land owner, the only bending over there is done is by the landowner!

Signed, bent over landowner.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-11-07 AT 08:42PM (MST)[p]>My family is a rancher /
>landowner in North West Colorado,
>we have 13,000 acres in
>a prime unit with hundreds
>of elk and many deer
>that are on our property
>most of the year. In
>the past 10 years we
>have gotten 4, count them......four....,
>land owner vouchers. We did
>not sell any of them,
>we used them in the
>family.

Is your property in one of the units managed for quality? (ie, 1, 2, 10, 201)

Elk, deer and antelope
>do damage to our fences,
>crops, all of our property!
>We are not crying for
>money from anyone

>As far as the fellow that
>said "the CDOW bending over
>backwards to help land owners",
>obviousely you are not a
>land owner, the only bending
>over there is done is
>by the landowner!

Let's see, wildlife is doing damage to your property, but you're "not crying for money from anyone." And you are surprised when the CDOW isn't knocking on your door with help? They likely won't help if you don't ask. Could it be that you don't want the kind of help they're willing to give?


>Land owners Improving the bottom line
>by selling their vouchers?
>If we sold every voucher
>we had we wouldn't even
>come close to paying the
>taxes on the place for
>one year!

That's an excellent argument against vouchers. Huge amounts of money are being paid for vouchers, but in the long run the landowners are not really benefiting, and hunters are losing out. These guys supporting vouchers claim that the money made is enough to keep landowners from selling out to developers. Sounds like that's not necessarily the case? It sounds to me like you would really benefit if the CDOW made vouchers good only on the land they were issued for. There would likely be much less competition for you in the landowner draw if those other landowners had less market for their vouchers. Have you approached the DOW with this suggestion?


>We usually do not allow hunters
>on our property - the
>biggest reason is trespassing. We
>are over run with trespassing
>SOB's. They pull out our
>gates, run over our fences
>to get in. This last
>year they cut our locks
>off too! If they would
>take a minute to ask
>what they could do for
>us, in order to hunt,
>they very well may be
>granted access. But they never
>ask, they destroy our property
>and trespass.

I'll agree with that. A large portion of hunters are unethical, uncaring pigs. They are their own worse enemy.

>Something does need to be done
>to be fair, some landowners
>in different areas receive many
>vouchers, yet others rarely see
>any.

Another good point. If every landowner got zero vouchers, that would be much more fair. Relegate all landowners to applying in the regular draw and they will each be guaranteed a tag when they acquire enough preference points.

Thanks for your imput. It's good to hear from a landowner's point of view. Hope to see you posting more often.
 
I don't see how we can compare landowner damages between mule deer
and whitetails back east. We live in the rocky mountains where deer
and elk live much of their lives in high elevations and are usually
forced to lower elevations (much of which is private ground) by
deep snow! With heavy concentrations in certain areas!
I agree with an earlier post! Most everyone seems to think if
you agree with landowner compensation you're a (tag pimp) or you
benefit from landowner tag sales or compensation! I'll say this,
I hate the way the Colorado LO voucher system has worked the last couple of years ( in fact I passed on a voucher last season I wanted
very bad) but I do agree there are better ways for a fair compensation to deserving LO. But until the smell in the air from
Co voucher sales clears this is a very touchy subject!
 
Let me tell you all a little (true) story, which is part of the reason I am so against LO compensation.

Once upon a time there was a mountain range in central MT. The mountains themselves were national forest land, but the surrounding ground was mostly private.

Back in the good old days, landowners in the area let hunters in and the elk numbers were kept at an acceptable level for a long time.

Then the landowners either turned into jerks, leased to outfitters, or otherwise shut off access to their elk-rich property. This was not a huge problem, as there was still access through the private lands to the national forest.

Elk populations started to grow, while at the same time, landowners slowly started lobbying to get the national forest access shut off that went through their property.

Eventually, almost all of the south side of the mountain range was closed down. What once had a half dozen or so accesses now had none. The north, east, and west side accesses were also reduced, however a few on the north side still existed. The problem was that the hunters could not get to the remote sides of the range from the few remaining access points and nobody would allow the hunters to even cross their land, much less hunt on it.

Much fewer elk were now killed, and the outfitters, only killing bulls, were not reducing the herd at any sizeable rate.

Soon the elk herd exploded with little hunting pressure.

Soon the landowners were complaining because their hay stacks were being raided by elk, and they went to the FWP for help. The FWP killed several elk each winter, which could have been killed by hunters in the fall.

So please tell me, why do they deserve to be helped?

The greed of the landowners caused this; it was their own fault and could have been avoided.

The landowners had the right to shut off access to certainly the private and possibly the public, but they also should have deal with the consequences for doing so.

So how does this action benefit us? I don't see how it does.

We can't hunt the elk, and our dollars pay for them to be removed. What good is a natural resource if you can't use it? Those elk may as well be dead, IMO.
 
ColoradoOak,

I wanted to respond to your statement - "Let's see, wildlife is doing damage to your property, but you're "not crying for money from anyone." And you are surprised when the CDOW isn't knocking on your door with help? They likely won't help if you don't ask. Could it be that you don't want the kind of help they're willing to give?"

Not to be sarcastic, but I read my post and I never said I was surprised the CDOW isn't knocking on my door. And you assumed we have never asked for help? We have asked many times for some help and they are unwilling to help us. We have put in ponds, guzzlers and other wildlife friendly things on our ranch at our own expense with virtually no response from the CDOW.

The unit we are in is 10.

We have approached the DWR with the idea of vouchers only for your land, but to no avail. We also talked with them about doing a 2 for 1 deal, we would allow two hunters on the property for 1 voucher for the land owner, still nothing.

You make great points and questions, but please realize that most of the people who own, manage and make a living from the property have already thought of and asked the good questions you are coming up with.
 
Guess we just don't get all those quality animals here in Arizona since we never have and never will allow landowner tags. Outfitters tried and failed many times and the Farm Bureau is always sucking the politicians to try to sneak them in. If they are so effective and the purpose is to control damage maybe someone can explain to me why New Mexico G&F told us that millions were made on selling landowner tags last year but the funny thing was that 90% of the LO cow elk tags were not used. Ain't that an interesting little statistic? Seems that if damage was the only issue that the ranchers would want to cull those cows out as well. It is all about owners, brokers and outfitters selling bull and buck tags for a profit. It has little to do with keeping them from selling the land for development. It is a business and when the profit line from selling out meets the BS line from keeping it most will sell. I can afford to buy a private tag if we allowed them but my grndson may not be able to so I hope we keep them out.
 
Muleys4me,
I think you missed my point and I'm growing a little weary of arguing this issue here, so I'll let it go. It's a tough break for you that your unit happens to be managed for trophy quality animals. Not only does it make tags/vouchers much less accessible but it greatly inflates the value of landowner vouchers, making them that much harder for you to draw. Unit 10 landowners got a sweet pilot program pushed through last year that gave some an opportunity at a few more licenses. Unfortunately, they got a little greedy and screwed that opportunity up. Tough to feel sorry for them now.

It looks like you might get lucky...it sounds like the Wildlife Commission is considering a change in the voucher program in future years that will make them good only on the land they are issued for. I encourage you to continue to send the commission comments supporting this change. I think you would benefit greatly from it.

Good luck....
 
Brian,
Thanks for admitting to benefiting from these vouchers in nearly every state due to your contacts and advertisers.....Many of the others on here have choose to elaborate on BS to justify back door agendas.
I appreciate your honesty.

The rest-
The reason the majority are not for the voucher system and brokers is simple if your in the other 99.9% of us common folks shoes.
How would it feel if the lucky .1% had to sit by and try to draw a tag each year and watch the same guys year after year hunt the same units?
How would it feel if you had hiked, filmed, and spent countless hours in your surrounding units close to home watching many huge bucks only to see many of them on the same guys success photos year after year because he had an "IN" with the supposed elite?
Well sooner than later I hope.

I have to say it is about time something is being done to stop this. Maybe not completely fixed by this year but hopefully by next.
When this is finally settled it will be very interesting to see how many of the "Consistant Yearly" monster buck shooters suddenly start bringing home average joe bucks like everybody else or eating tag soup.
Many of the .1% will point out jealousy as the reason most are opposed to these tags.
The majority of us rather work hard without cutting corners.
Most of us rather do our own work rather than use others or the system loopholes for selfish reasons.
There is a difference between the connected and the majority.
The majority hunt harder and enjoy the actual hunt itself even if they had ups and downs.
The elite feel they failed if they cannot get a gagger of a buck. The hunt and consistent need to "Prove" themselves to the poor souls that believe everyhing they hear from them is the obsession.
If many of the average joes spent some time in the hills with guys they think are "Legends" they would see they are just as good or better.
Get everyone on the same playing field is only fair. Money and greed as far as I know never made anyone better than the other guy. We all crap in the woods.
We all get caught up on wanting to get a dream buck and there is nothing wrong with that.....Try not to lose the feeling you had when you were younger while doing it.
Rambling over:)
Best,
Jerry




44f4e09309b4a917.jpg
 

Similar threads

M
Nevada Elk Incentive or Damage Crop Tags?
Replies
12
Views
910
wstrntines
wstrntines
N
Benefits of E Plus
Replies
93
Views
3k
MrRogers
MrRogers
Deerlove
Winter conditions
Replies
15
Views
2k
ridgetops
ridgetops

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

PXL_20240308_224909381.jpg
IMG_0239.JPG
P1010613.JPG
deer 3.PNG
[000138].jpg
Buda 2023-2.jpg
061 bull.PNG
C39B082C-040F-4C3E-A600-46DD44AA1ED2.jpeg
20190120_140246.jpg
654BF6FA-DC42-4EAA-90D0-6AE94221A510.jpeg
Screenshot_20230706_080450_Chrome.jpg
Monster Bull
Back
Top Bottom