Unit Wide property. Worth the effort?

[salsola]

Hi all,

How many have gone to the trouble to get the unit-wide ranch properties locations? Was it worth it? Are the maps they give you helpful?

I've got a unit 50 elk hunt and am trying to decide if it is worth the time and expense to track down where all those properties are. For GMU 50 there are 29 unit wide "ranches" totaling 19,000+ acres. Not much percentage wise of the unit, but probably some key spots with water.

If anyone has gone to the trouble, I'd love to hear your experience.

thanks,

 

[Gator]

I would try never know when you will find a diamond in the rough.

"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>the MM green signature club.[font/]

 

[NMelkhunter]

LAST EDITED ON Aug-10-12 AT 10:43PM (MST)[p]Just requested landowner maps of a different unit and found them to have a wide range of detail. Some of them you'd have no idea where the ranches are unless you are a map buff with plenty of mapping resources. Others were fairly simple and easy to understand where the private land was but did not have very detailed info of the specific boundaries.

Seems to me G &F should implement some standards of map quality and level of information required from the landowners and they should also be available to the public via the internet. Given that they are receiving significant monetary compensation in the form of tags, it doesn't seem to be asking too much.

As a side note, when I called to request the maps, the first gentleman I talked to told me that I should contact the listed unit wide landowners to get maps. After a sarcastic chuckle from me and a "yeah right", I informed him that it was his responsibility to make those maps available to the public and that I was in no way going to spend my time tracking those down from each individual unit wide landowner. He then transfered me to a young lady who was much more helpful and got the maps (or what they called maps) to me rather quickly.

With the given quality of maps that I received, they'd have a difficult time making a trespassing charge stick if the property was not marked physically with signage and fencing.

 

[hunting1]

It is a joke! I tried to get LO info in 53 when I bought a LO tag and it was not easy. Then one of the LO on the UW list tried to tell me I could not hunt his land. Just one more reason the LO system sucks! If you want to be on the UW list then you should have to post your property on the G&F site. I do agree that out of courtesy if possible trying to make contact, but other than do not drive off roads, should not be an issue.

 

[salsola]

Thanks for the replies so far.

NMelkhunter: What you describe is about what I expected. Some good, some truly bad, and some that just aren't helpful. I've got some decent mapping skills and software, so if I can help you track down some parcels, let me know. Did you get charged the $0.25 per page printing fee?

I think we spoke to the same Game and Fish guy. Must be the private lands coordinator. He gave me the same line about calling the landowner. I asked him if he really thought landowners would willingly share that info to a total stranger. "no, probably, not.", was his reply.

I agree that some sort of standard should be imposed. At the very least a township and range with section number. How hard is that? I also like the idea of making all this information available on the internet. Perhaps not completely public, but put it on the Game and Fish online license system so that only those who apply for and purchase licenses could see them.

Thanks again for the info.

 

[OCHOA505]

So did you guys get the maps from the G&F? I definetly thinkg this is worth pursuing for anyone! Anyone who spends enough time out knows the animals know whats pulic and private. Some of the smallest unthought of land hold elk during the rut.

 

[fishfurlife]

LAST EDITED ON Aug-11-12 AT 08:20AM (MST)[p]I went through this last season with unit 50. Personally talked to about 10 ranchers. Most of them chuckled and made the comment that they hardly ever see elk on their places. They all made comments about the Antelope on their places though. I ended up hunting public ground.

I also tried to get maps for the unit and was told that it wasn't possible. I got the same run around as mentioned above except I gave up on getting the maps.

 

[WapitiBob]

Bypass the numbskull on the phone and file a public info request. They have 10 days to respond.

 

[NMelkhunter]

Salsola-

I did end up getting the maps at $0.25 a piece. I think I ended up with about a $5 total charge which isn't too bad. Thanks for the map offer. I too fancy myself as a map buff so i was able to get all of the properties located, but Lord help someone who is expecting them to look anything like any thing like even a simple forest service map.

Still worth the hassle though as it at least informs you about where you can and can't hunt in addition to the public ground.

 

[DougW]

Salsola-

all i can say is be wary of the whole system. You can see my new post on the antelope hunt I just got finished with-

 

[salsola]

Filed my public records request this morning. Thanks to all who gave their opinions and input.

fishfurlife: sent you a PM regarding your elk hunt in 50.

DougW: thanks for posting up your experiences. Perhaps the more examples that exists of how flawed the current land-owner system is, the better chance there can be of some improvement. Having someone like yourself openly describe how the system does or doesn't work can only help.

good luck to all this season.

 

[DougW]

Thanks Salsola. Here's something else:

This ranch has 7000 acres, and 2 "public" (random draw) hunters, along with apparently 3 sellable tags.

Bottom line: in 3+ days of hunting/scouting, I glassed up probably 8 or 10 70+ antelope. All but 1 of those was located within a few hundred yards, or just outside, the ranch boundaries. Think about it....the system was not working for this ranch, anyways.

 

[salsola]

Updating and closing out this thread in case anyone references it later on.

Received the UW landowner maps about 5 days after the request. Quick enough for me.

As others have noted, the maps are both good and bad. For me, I was able to guestimate the locations of the properties pretty well just from what was included by the landowner. About 5 out of the 30 maps were very difficult to locate without having some additional forest service or blm maps to compare against. I haven't located the properties on a topo map or air photo to see how useful the properties might be for hunting, but some of them are definitely in good areas that help connect surrounding public lands.

1 map was from a whole different hunt unit 2 counties away.

7 of the 30 properties were listed as "No Map on File". That's almost 25% of the properties. I called the EPLUS coordinator and he said those properties probably were enrolled before they required maps. I tried the landowners but either got answering machines or in one instance a disconnected number.

I have a suspicion that Game and Fish hasn't audited the land owner system in a while and probably can't verify how many of those grandfathered properties are still under the same ownership, with the same number of acres.

 

[WapitiBob]

Doesn't matter when they enrolled, they need to have current maps on file or get dropped from the program. That dept doesn't go out of their way to enforce the rules of the program.

 

[salsola]

Thanks for the clarification. I wondered if that was the case. The EPLUS coordinator did sound a little defensive about my inquiry as to why they didn't have current maps. I've submitted a second request for info on these properties. While it would be nice to know where the properties are, most of all I'd like those who run the program to tighten things up a bit. Wishful thinking?