landowner grazing rights

[mossback50cal]

Why is it that landowners can graze their cattle on public lands for a small price, I think its $2 a head, but yet if an elk gets on their land and causes "damage" they can shoot it. How is that fair to "us", the people who supposedly own the animal and public ground? They get landowner tags and get paid for them, which is reimbursement for the "damage" the elk cause. So shouldn't we get something to reimburse us for our loss of animals? Just my two cents on the subject.

 

[Bigbuck9]

I agree that some landowners take advantage of the system. However, the average rancher doen't abuse the system and is just barely making ends meet.

Some food for thought.
How would you feel if you couldn't graze the number of cattle you had always grazed and needed to graze to stay in buisness because of increasing wildlife pops?

Some people would argue that wildlife on private land should be private. I am not really sure I agree but there are points to be made on both side of the argument.

 

[Snapshot]

Grazing rights are the only economical way to raise cattle, if they had to feed them out of their pocket the price of beef would skyrocket. As far as shooting elk that are competing with livestock, I wish they would come up with an alternative way of dealing with it. Trapping, relocation, etc is expensive too.I agree with giving landowners a certain amount of tags as long as they don't abuse the system. The cattle business is tough in today's economy and I don't want to pay $25.00 for an average steak at the grocery store.

 

[BIGBULL48]

Mossback
You almost know what you're asking.
A landowner is exactly that, a land owner.
The landowner does not pay himself to graze cattle on his own land. He could, but the paper work would drive him nuts.
A landowner gets Landowner permits from the State based on:
a. How much land they own, (deeded land).
b. How many game animals live there.
If I owned 2 million acres near Deming or Hobbs I'd get zero elk permits - because there are no elk there.

Anyone that pays for grazing on US Forest land does not get a landowner permit - they do not own the land.
That's why the NMDGF call them "Landowner permits".

What maybe confusing you is joint ownership land. My cousin's
ranch is such a place. The US Forest and my cousin have joint ownership and use. When my Uncle died, they,(the family)had to pay inheritance tax on the joint use land to the US Government, or lose the ranch.
They get landowner tags for elk for their land, they own it and have a deed of ownership that goes onto what is the US Forest. The US Forest also owns it, so YOU get to go hunt on their land because YOU are part of the "us", the people who own the animals and public ground". However, you have no vested interest in keep the land in good condition or picking up the trash that many hunter leave for others to clean-up. In that case the ranch "owner" gets to clean up (the government doesn't have a clean up trash division).The rancher is required to maintain fences etc.

I hope that helps you understand some definitions of words you used in your question/statement.

 

[Ropinfool]

Here's my thoughts....and i do have a few head of bovine.

The landowner system isn't fair. It enables ranchers to make more money off of hunting than cattle. If you really want to be fair, treat it something like the antalope tags. If a landowner has problems with wildlife then ad some more tags to the public draw and open up the ranch. The only ones who oppose this are the landowners and the outfitters.

 

[TB1]

I agree,they(landowner) tend to block off roads that arn't supposed to be and take advantage of the system.I'm all for shutting down the lease land's and let th forest service and game&fish issue more tags to the public.

 

[Hooked_on_Coues]

You post a righteous question. Why should the landowner get tags he can sell to hunt public land when he pays pennies on the dollar for the grazing rights?

I think the fair way to do it would be to limit the landowner to what they can charge. Why should his grass be worth thousands when he leases the federal land for a small fraction of the cost?

If he is given a tag as reparation for damage done to his property he should pay an equivalent amount to graze on OUR land.

The best solution would be to give as many damn landowner tags as they ask for, but make them ranch only. No more unit wide tags for landowners!

 

[JFWRC]

LAST EDITED ON Sep-01-07 AT 08:34PM (MST)[p]1.Landowners CANNOT SHOOT depredating elk on leased/permitted land.
2.Lanowners CAN shoot depredating elk on PRIVATE LAND ONLY
3. USFS, BLM, and STATE LAND is leasehold only,grazing rights only-This land is not considered when the state authorizes landowner permits-There is a formula based on ratio that dictate what goes to a private landowner and what goes to the public.
4. Getting rid of unit wide may be a solution, but there is a lot of ranches that get public access today. Make it ranch only and you just shut off a bunch of country.

 

[Hooked_on_Coues]

JFWRC,

You are right on 1, 2 and 3.

the problem with the unit wide hunts is the number of smaller landowners selling tags. they far outnumber the bigger outfits that are signing the agreement to have unit wide tags.

A ranch over 10,000 acres can get as many tags as they want. The big guys go ranch only so the amount of private land opened vs. the number of public tags sold by private individuals does not provide equity to the public. Landowners are selling tags for thousands of dollars to hunt elk that don't even stay on their property. There is little to no benefit to public hunters.

Landowners should be compensated for damage done to their property. I understand that. What gets me is they can make huge money selling permits to people that won't hunt their property. Their grazing leases cost a small fraction of what they are getting for tags. Why should their grass be worth thousands when they are paying pennies to use ours?

Eliminate the unit wide tags. GIve them ranch only permits. The market will balance the value. Folks won't pay to hunt a ranch with no elk. It would also encourage landowners to manage the animals on their properties ( I realize there are many already doing an awesome job managing, but they are not typically the ones getting unit wide tags).

 

[JFWRC]

I'm with you. However, there is NO correlation between the authorizations issued on private vs. leasehold. The balance you speak of is happening. The system is complicated. Do you know how the specifics work? Look at UW vs. RO in 2. I'm serious, you will get a clear look at why UW can be way good.

 

[Hooked_on_Coues]

Jim,

I think you miss my point. I don't mean to imply that the lease land is given any weight in the allocation of tags. My beef is the lease costs of grazing versus the prices they are getting for their UW tags.

Tell me how much the lease is 6,000 acres, then tell me how much the landowner gets for selling the 7 elk tags he gets for an equivalent sized piece of private property. The two amounts should be about the same.

The tags are basically given as reparation for damages the elk cause. If they were limited to private land only the prices on them would balance out based on the ACTUAL usage. If there are no elk, no damages, no demand for sales of tags. If there are alot of elk there will be more demand for those tags and the reparation would be fair. G&F will tell you tags are not money for damages, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck......

This would be equitable for the landowner and the public.

I know you have a vested interest and I appreciate that. I am worried that the continued commercialization of the sport is going to hurt everyone in the long run, outfitters and landowners included.

 

[JFWRC]

Hooked-Your right......I have missed your point. I'm not sure how you can correlate a leasehold interest vs. private interest in this scenario. Are you suggesting that the state land office offer hunting rights for lease like they do grazing and minerals? I do not make the connection between what grass leases for and what hunting costs. A rancher should not be getting compensated for loss of forage on leasehold (BLM, State, USFS) and I don't think they are. Have they asked to be compensated somehow for their water improvements, broken fence, and loss of forage on lease? YES. Has it happened? NO. I was on the landowner committee a few years back and am well aware of the fomulas that go into calculating how the department trys to get a particular harvest in a given unit. The formula dictates how each ranch competes against another in a given unit based on usage factors-has nothing to do with what grass lease is. I'd be happy to visit with you on the phone about the formula, core vs. non core, small ranches vs. large ranches. Shoot me a PM with your phone number and I'll ring you up. I am a farm and ranch real estate appraiser by trade. Yes, I do have a small outfitting business, but I am by far a sportman who likes to hunt as well and do every year. I hunt both public and private and I certainly understand your concern about the cost of hunting. Thankfully I have been blessed enough at this stage that I can now, after 26 years of hard work, start to afford to hunt private ranches. Yes, I pay to go on ranches. I like the quality of the hunting and they safety both. Will I hunt public? You bet. Are there lines in the sand on how much I will pay, oh ya..... Jimbo