Hiker of the Woods
Active Member
- Messages
- 623
Does anyone think this would be a good idea for Oregon?
http://wildlife.state.co.us/Hunting/BigGame/RanchingforWildlife/
http://wildlife.state.co.us/Hunting/BigGame/RanchingforWildlife/
Ranching for Wildlife
- Thread starter Hiker of the Woods
- Start date
lostinOregon
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,156
Nope
desperatehills
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,395
I don't understand why you would be against it. Habitat for wildlife would be improved on private land and hunters would be allowed to hunt more country. My question is where will the money come from to improve and manage this project. Certainly the liberals from the Willamette valley wont want to use their new found fortune from measure 66 & 67
Hiker of the Woods
Active Member
- Messages
- 623
It sounds like a good idea to me. It opens up private land to the poor hunter and not just the rich hunter.
M
Mister_Hawk
Guest
I agree. I am very involved with the Mule deer fondation (MDF) and my chapter donated some money to help the BLM purchase a ranch up in NE Oregon that will be open for the public. I know there was some other organizations that donated as well. I wish more people would get involved with the MDF, we are doing some really great things here in Oregon. The nice about MDF is that we keep a certain percent of money from each chapter banquet right here in Oregon. Some of the other organization's send most of ther money to a national level that Oregon will never see. Most people want sit around and ##### about high prices and the game mngt, etc.(I agree that some ##### need's to change) but, more people need to get involved and help the cause. Hawk
Hiker of the Woods
Active Member
- Messages
- 623
Here is a little more that someone has said about CO program.
Quote:
"I'm not sure how it would work in Oregon but back when nonresidents were eligible for RFW tags I drew 2 public Muledeer deer tags for the Trencheria Ranch is Southern Colorado, to say the hunting was great would be an understatement. The ranch was over 200,000 acres at that time and the deer numbers were phenomenal. I killed a heavy horned 30 inch four point my first trip, and heavy horned 27 inch four point my second trip, both after passing up numerous smaller bucks. The other public hunters also did well. There were cattle on the ranch but because of the program and the income it generates for the owner there were a lot less than there would have been.
The hunts took place after the ranch was done with it's guided hunts for the year, but there was still an abundance of quality bucks. Of course since I was lucky enough to draw tags I think it's a great opportunity for a regular Joe to be able to hunt prime private land, but the available tags were very limited. The way the program basically works is that a certain number of tags are allotted to the general public, through a drawing, in exchange for a ranch to be able to set there own seasons. As long as the CDFW approves everything. They also have to create and maintain quality deer and elk/wildlife habitat to be and stay enrolled in the program.
When ever hunting private land is mentioned there are those that say nothing should be done to improve hunting opportunities because it only benifits the rich. I think many of the people that feel this way are simply jealous that they don't have the opportunity to hunt private ground, or they have never seen the difference between well managed private land and most public land. To put it simply, if you had 500 acres would you manage it, or would you let the state manage it?
I wish I could afford high dollar hunts but I can't, but I would sure as hell rather see a ranches habit improved for the local deer and wildlife than see it over grazed by cattle or plowed under to grow trees or grapes, or have houses built on. In many cases these are the choices. What all of the private land bashers have to remember is that good quality habitat is hard to find and once it's gone, it's NEVER COMING BACK." Dan
Quote:
"I'm not sure how it would work in Oregon but back when nonresidents were eligible for RFW tags I drew 2 public Muledeer deer tags for the Trencheria Ranch is Southern Colorado, to say the hunting was great would be an understatement. The ranch was over 200,000 acres at that time and the deer numbers were phenomenal. I killed a heavy horned 30 inch four point my first trip, and heavy horned 27 inch four point my second trip, both after passing up numerous smaller bucks. The other public hunters also did well. There were cattle on the ranch but because of the program and the income it generates for the owner there were a lot less than there would have been.
The hunts took place after the ranch was done with it's guided hunts for the year, but there was still an abundance of quality bucks. Of course since I was lucky enough to draw tags I think it's a great opportunity for a regular Joe to be able to hunt prime private land, but the available tags were very limited. The way the program basically works is that a certain number of tags are allotted to the general public, through a drawing, in exchange for a ranch to be able to set there own seasons. As long as the CDFW approves everything. They also have to create and maintain quality deer and elk/wildlife habitat to be and stay enrolled in the program.
When ever hunting private land is mentioned there are those that say nothing should be done to improve hunting opportunities because it only benifits the rich. I think many of the people that feel this way are simply jealous that they don't have the opportunity to hunt private ground, or they have never seen the difference between well managed private land and most public land. To put it simply, if you had 500 acres would you manage it, or would you let the state manage it?
I wish I could afford high dollar hunts but I can't, but I would sure as hell rather see a ranches habit improved for the local deer and wildlife than see it over grazed by cattle or plowed under to grow trees or grapes, or have houses built on. In many cases these are the choices. What all of the private land bashers have to remember is that good quality habitat is hard to find and once it's gone, it's NEVER COMING BACK." Dan
S
scoutdog5
Guest
In my opinion, the ranching for wildlife program in Colorado, and a similar program in Utah called Cooperative Wildlife Management Units, are not a good program, and Oregon should not follow that path.
Both programs in essence set up a separate unit for a ranch that is in the program. Normal season dates do not apply. In Colorado, the rancher gets 90 days to conduct his hunts, in Utah 60 days. Colorado requires 12,000 acres for a ranch to qualify, Utah 5,000.
There are certainly some habitat benefits to these programs. Both states also require that approximately 10% of the tags are placed in the public draw for residents, and the resident who draws gets to hunt for no charge.
With the exception of the Deseret Ranch in Utah, which is 200,000 acres, virtually all of these ranches hunt migratory big game herds that spend much of their year on public land. Many of them are premier units, where drawing a public tag takes many years.
In essence, wealthy individuals are able to hunt public animals in premium units during the rut every year, while public hunters will wait years to draw, and then hunt on far less favorable dates. In my view, these programs continue the ongoing movement to allow the best hunting opportunities to be purchased by the highest bidder, with very little of those funds ending up with the public agencies who are responsible for managing those populations.
Colorado does have a program that Oregon should emulate. It is similar to our Access and Habitat program, but managed much better, in my opinion.
Funds are used to purchase private land that is owned by the Fish and Wildlife, and managed for hunting. State Trust lands are leased for the same purpose. Complete inofrmation about both porgrams is maintained on the Fish and wildlife website, and properties are well marked and signed. Unlike Oregon, a person could spend several hours on teh Colarado website, look at every property in the program, including maps and rules, and use that information to help plan a hunt. Wyoming has similar program called Hunter Management areas, as well as a substantial amount of property enrolled in their Walk in access program. Again, complete information is available on the Wyoming website.
Oregon pays landowners thousands of dollars to open up their property to hunting, then makes it extremely difficult for hunters to find out about those properties. I have been told that they do this because landowners don't want lots of hunters on their property. Don't know if that is true, but if so, why are they getting money?
Scoutdog
Both programs in essence set up a separate unit for a ranch that is in the program. Normal season dates do not apply. In Colorado, the rancher gets 90 days to conduct his hunts, in Utah 60 days. Colorado requires 12,000 acres for a ranch to qualify, Utah 5,000.
There are certainly some habitat benefits to these programs. Both states also require that approximately 10% of the tags are placed in the public draw for residents, and the resident who draws gets to hunt for no charge.
With the exception of the Deseret Ranch in Utah, which is 200,000 acres, virtually all of these ranches hunt migratory big game herds that spend much of their year on public land. Many of them are premier units, where drawing a public tag takes many years.
In essence, wealthy individuals are able to hunt public animals in premium units during the rut every year, while public hunters will wait years to draw, and then hunt on far less favorable dates. In my view, these programs continue the ongoing movement to allow the best hunting opportunities to be purchased by the highest bidder, with very little of those funds ending up with the public agencies who are responsible for managing those populations.
Colorado does have a program that Oregon should emulate. It is similar to our Access and Habitat program, but managed much better, in my opinion.
Funds are used to purchase private land that is owned by the Fish and Wildlife, and managed for hunting. State Trust lands are leased for the same purpose. Complete inofrmation about both porgrams is maintained on the Fish and wildlife website, and properties are well marked and signed. Unlike Oregon, a person could spend several hours on teh Colarado website, look at every property in the program, including maps and rules, and use that information to help plan a hunt. Wyoming has similar program called Hunter Management areas, as well as a substantial amount of property enrolled in their Walk in access program. Again, complete information is available on the Wyoming website.
Oregon pays landowners thousands of dollars to open up their property to hunting, then makes it extremely difficult for hunters to find out about those properties. I have been told that they do this because landowners don't want lots of hunters on their property. Don't know if that is true, but if so, why are they getting money?
Scoutdog
lostinOregon
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,156
You need to look at how many tags go in the draw to the public, look at Oregon, heck a Trout creek tag is impossible and there are 50 of them. How about 2 tags in a RFW property, do you really think you would draw one in your lifetime. The ones that would profit would be the outfitters/landowners, not the general public.
We should focus all efforts in Oregon on predator control, until that is changed it doesn't matter if the whole state was a RFW.
On the other hand I have hunted in some of Colorado's SWA's, private land purchased and turned into permanent access to all hunters. That program works,
Do not turn Oregon into the one with the most money wins.
Rich
We should focus all efforts in Oregon on predator control, until that is changed it doesn't matter if the whole state was a RFW.
On the other hand I have hunted in some of Colorado's SWA's, private land purchased and turned into permanent access to all hunters. That program works,
Do not turn Oregon into the one with the most money wins.
Rich
Hiker of the Woods
Active Member
- Messages
- 623
LAST EDITED ON Feb-10-10 AT 10:21PM (MST)[p]Here is some more good information from a guy the just moved to OR from CO.
Quote:
?Thanks for all your work to try and keep us all informed about whats going on out there BS!
I think that the RFW program could work in Oregon. It gives more public hunters a chance to hunt in some areas that they normally would not be able to hunt, without spending a ton of money. It gives ranchers incentive to maintain their property in a manner that benefits our big game and all hunters in the long run. Ranches are often found in the lower elevation areas that are the winter range habitat for our big game. If we could get some ranches on board with improving the big game habitat on their land we just might find more critters in the fall on our higher elevation public lands. Big game concentrations on ranchland is more of a nuisance and damage source to cattle or farming operations.
But, there has to be incentive for these ranches to integrate big game management into their land use practices. And that comes in the form of $$. This program gives ranchers more flexibility to set their own seasons (not necessarily bag limits) and offer some high quality hunts for big $$. As the quality of habitat improves they can have more tags and make more $$. Why not give them quality tags to sell instead of damage control tags? It doesn't just transform the property into a "pay-to-play" area for the rich because what are the chances of you and I getting free permission to hunt on a 12,000 acre ranch anyway? Any ranch with good hunting has already sold their hunting rights to guiding outfits a long time ago. But, if ranches participate in the program they must offer an allotment of tags to the general public through the draw. These tags would likely take many pref. points to draw. Wouldn't having another say 50 elk tags per year throughout the state available for 5+ preference points each take some of the heat off of high demand public property hunts and help all of our chances for enjoying a quality hunt in our lives?
The only people that might not benefit are some guides/outfitters that can not gain access to these properties and lose business because of a new high demand and quality hunt becoming available in their area. But for the average hunter, I think that overall it is a good thing. It creates opportunity directly by providing more access to the specific chunks of land and indirectly by increasing the carrying capacity for all the animals in a general area from improved habitat.? J-Dog
Here is some good info from a person that has been to CO and hunted on one of these ranches.
Quote:
?I think you may have missed the emphasis of RFW program and other programs like it. The main idea behind these types of programs are to create an incentive for property owners to improve habitat and wildlife numbers. It is not to give us "poor" hunters a place to hunt. Public hunting opportunities are a requirement for ranches enrolled in the program and a benefit to those of us who are lucky enough to get drawn for the hunts.
In theory a hunter knocking on a ranch owners door and gaining permission to hunt is a great idea but in much of the country these opportunities are getting harder and harder to find. Liability, lack of respect, and the knowledge that hunting rights are now worth a good amount of money have greatly reduced the opportunity. I don't understand hunters that feel there's something wrong when a ranch owner charges a fee to hunt their property. Why should the benefits of a ranch owners blood sweat and tears be handed out for free to someone who knocks on their door. Although it's great when you are on the receiving it really doesn't make any sense. Remember RFW GUARANTEES public access, asking permission does not.
I can truthfully say I have never seen more wildlife in an area than on the "natural" parts of the Trincheria ranch. Muledeer and Elk were every where, not to mention thousands of ducks and geese in the marsh areas that had been reclaimed from barren stock ponds. In contrast property owners of the surrounding parcels had subdivided them into small pieces and were in the process of developing them, and guess what, a golf course was even in the planning.
RFW programs also increase the number of individuals that can potentially gain access to these lands rather than locking them up for the lucky few. I may be wrong but I think the animals taken during the general season are also closely monitored by CDFW , and are included in the ranches over all quote. It is also a common misconception that all tags given to a ranch are for late season hunts, this is not the case.
Well managed private and public land is without a doubt better for wildlife than land that has no management plan in place. Again the Trincheria ranch is a perfect example. Cattle were removed or greatly reduced on large portions of the ranch allowing the native habitat to return to a more natural state. I owned a cattle ranch for years and can attest to the fact that in many cases, ranches that run cattle, are not managed properly, and the natural habit is destroyed or severely damaged. Once damaged it will take years to recover. In the case of vineyards (which are common in my area) the habitat will never again see abundant wildlife and those hunting opportunities will be lost forever.? Dan
Quote:
?Thanks for all your work to try and keep us all informed about whats going on out there BS!
I think that the RFW program could work in Oregon. It gives more public hunters a chance to hunt in some areas that they normally would not be able to hunt, without spending a ton of money. It gives ranchers incentive to maintain their property in a manner that benefits our big game and all hunters in the long run. Ranches are often found in the lower elevation areas that are the winter range habitat for our big game. If we could get some ranches on board with improving the big game habitat on their land we just might find more critters in the fall on our higher elevation public lands. Big game concentrations on ranchland is more of a nuisance and damage source to cattle or farming operations.
But, there has to be incentive for these ranches to integrate big game management into their land use practices. And that comes in the form of $$. This program gives ranchers more flexibility to set their own seasons (not necessarily bag limits) and offer some high quality hunts for big $$. As the quality of habitat improves they can have more tags and make more $$. Why not give them quality tags to sell instead of damage control tags? It doesn't just transform the property into a "pay-to-play" area for the rich because what are the chances of you and I getting free permission to hunt on a 12,000 acre ranch anyway? Any ranch with good hunting has already sold their hunting rights to guiding outfits a long time ago. But, if ranches participate in the program they must offer an allotment of tags to the general public through the draw. These tags would likely take many pref. points to draw. Wouldn't having another say 50 elk tags per year throughout the state available for 5+ preference points each take some of the heat off of high demand public property hunts and help all of our chances for enjoying a quality hunt in our lives?
The only people that might not benefit are some guides/outfitters that can not gain access to these properties and lose business because of a new high demand and quality hunt becoming available in their area. But for the average hunter, I think that overall it is a good thing. It creates opportunity directly by providing more access to the specific chunks of land and indirectly by increasing the carrying capacity for all the animals in a general area from improved habitat.? J-Dog
Here is some good info from a person that has been to CO and hunted on one of these ranches.
Quote:
?I think you may have missed the emphasis of RFW program and other programs like it. The main idea behind these types of programs are to create an incentive for property owners to improve habitat and wildlife numbers. It is not to give us "poor" hunters a place to hunt. Public hunting opportunities are a requirement for ranches enrolled in the program and a benefit to those of us who are lucky enough to get drawn for the hunts.
In theory a hunter knocking on a ranch owners door and gaining permission to hunt is a great idea but in much of the country these opportunities are getting harder and harder to find. Liability, lack of respect, and the knowledge that hunting rights are now worth a good amount of money have greatly reduced the opportunity. I don't understand hunters that feel there's something wrong when a ranch owner charges a fee to hunt their property. Why should the benefits of a ranch owners blood sweat and tears be handed out for free to someone who knocks on their door. Although it's great when you are on the receiving it really doesn't make any sense. Remember RFW GUARANTEES public access, asking permission does not.
I can truthfully say I have never seen more wildlife in an area than on the "natural" parts of the Trincheria ranch. Muledeer and Elk were every where, not to mention thousands of ducks and geese in the marsh areas that had been reclaimed from barren stock ponds. In contrast property owners of the surrounding parcels had subdivided them into small pieces and were in the process of developing them, and guess what, a golf course was even in the planning.
RFW programs also increase the number of individuals that can potentially gain access to these lands rather than locking them up for the lucky few. I may be wrong but I think the animals taken during the general season are also closely monitored by CDFW , and are included in the ranches over all quote. It is also a common misconception that all tags given to a ranch are for late season hunts, this is not the case.
Well managed private and public land is without a doubt better for wildlife than land that has no management plan in place. Again the Trincheria ranch is a perfect example. Cattle were removed or greatly reduced on large portions of the ranch allowing the native habitat to return to a more natural state. I owned a cattle ranch for years and can attest to the fact that in many cases, ranches that run cattle, are not managed properly, and the natural habit is destroyed or severely damaged. Once damaged it will take years to recover. In the case of vineyards (which are common in my area) the habitat will never again see abundant wildlife and those hunting opportunities will be lost forever.? Dan
I do not understand how some people think? These are Ranches you would never have a chance to hunt unless they enroll in a program like this. At least they are limited to the amount of tags they get private and public. What alot of these ranchers in Co, did was over hunt there property or not let anyone on the property. So they get special tags for improving habitat, this not only helps game on there property but game that goes from private to public lands. I look at it as a OIL tag.
