Utah Wildlife Forum banner
1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
146 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Are Walk in access lands considered "private" I am still trying to figure out these Private cow tags. How does someone actually be benefit from them more than a regular tag? In the past you could do the same thing(the yearly Chalk creek debacle clearly comes to mind) by buying access for hunting on private land within your hunt area. I can see it a big win for the private land owners that now all essentially have ability to sell access for a cow hunts that would last from august 1 to January 31.


unsure if it will actually do anything other than create a market for private land owners to be able to sell access more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,645 Posts
The extended pheasant season is only open on state and federal land - but since WIA areas are state-administered lands, they qualify as public land for purposes of the extended pheasant season, and remain open to hunting when other private lands are closed.

In order for the rules to remain consistent, I anticipate that WIA areas will qualify as public land for purposes of the private lands only cow elk permits. I'd bet that the division will provide sure clarification on the matter as soon as rules are finalized.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,638 Posts
I think, as has been said, that the DWR will be better able to confront complaining landowners re "problem" elk. If the landowner is not opening up access, they might not be able to get payment for crop damage (or as much). I think it makes those that have the problem with the elk "put their money where their mouths are" so to speak, but rather than money per se it is access.

This really should open up public access of various private lands, and this can be a great thing as long as the public is responsible and takes care of the property. I think this is a great starting point to returning landowners to a mindset that public hunters aren't just sign-shooting, fence-wrecking, littering morons but are actually capable of being responsible stewards.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
146 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
I think, as has been said, that the DWR will be better able to confront complaining landowners re "problem" elk. If the landowner is not opening up access, they might not be able to get payment for crop damage (or as much). I think it makes those that have the problem with the elk "put their money where their mouths are" so to speak, but rather than money per se it is access.

This really should open up public access of various private lands, and this can be a great thing as long as the public is responsible and takes care of the property. I think this is a great starting point to returning landowners to a mindset that public hunters aren't just sign-shooting, fence-wrecking, littering morons but are actually capable of being responsible stewards.
Call me pessimistic pete, but I don't see that happening. Land owners have had the opportunity to open lands for cow hunts for a long time. Most of them wont or they expect payment for the access. I don't see how a "prlvate lands only" tag is going to change their mind from where it is now other than their ability to grant you access has a lot more value now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
648 Posts
Call me pessimistic pete, but I don't see that happening. Land owners have had the opportunity to open lands for cow hunts for a long time. Most of them wont or they expect payment for the access. I don't see how a "prlvate lands only" tag is going to change their mind from where it is now other than their ability to grant you access has a lot more value now.
Unless they treat it like they do in Wyoming and the landowner signs the tag, then benefits from allowing access.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,827 Posts
Seven, you might very well be correct. I'll ask the same question I ask everyone complaining about this. What would you propose be done to solve the issue of such a high percentage of the population on private lands?

I haven't even got a response yet, let alone a more viable option than this one being proposed.

I'll say it again, I'm not sure it will accomplish the desired outcome, but at least they are trying something.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,608 Posts
Seven, you might very well be correct. I'll ask the same question I ask everyone complaining about this. What would you propose be done to solve the issue of such a high percentage of the population on private lands?
Well,
If they figure 60% are living year round on private,
Exclude that number from the herd estimate.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,638 Posts
Call me pessimistic pete, but I don't see that happening. Land owners have had the opportunity to open lands for cow hunts for a long time. Most of them wont or they expect payment for the access. I don't see how a "prlvate lands only" tag is going to change their mind from where it is now other than their ability to grant you access has a lot more value now.
I never said it would be free access, but I bet several landowners will get told by the DWR to pound sand if elk cause damage and it turns out they didn't let any public hunters on. But time will tell and this may end up being a total fiasco, or a wild success, or something in between. There will be one certainty, somebody is still going to complain. To them I echo Vanilla's call for what is your better solution, and frankly I'm not familiar enough out sure how possible Goofy's proposal is from a procedural standpoint.

And by increasing the value of the commodity you'll increase the number of willing providers. That would be land opening up, for a price, that previously wasn't open for negotiation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,827 Posts
Well,
If they figure 60% are living year round on private,
Exclude that number from the herd estimate.....
Sounds good in theory, but can't they legally do that? I would think they would run into trouble with the other stakeholders if they tried to do that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
561 Posts
Sounds good in theory, but can't they legally do that? I would think they would run into trouble with the other stakeholders if they tried to do that.
It's in the works, theoretically possible but it requires some substantial changes to how we manage elk and the laws therein. It's not one of those push it through the racs and WB and be done solutions. But it's possible and hopefully we can continue to work towards it
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,816 Posts
Sounds great to remove the private lands elk from the objective. What do we do with elk that spend time on both private and public lands? And do we count in June or in January?
How do we then manage the private lands elk? Do we issue private lands elk tags? hhmmmm......

Honestly, it is hard to believe so many want something for free. Having first hand knowledge with the damage elk do to private lands and the costs associated with that damage, it seems very reasonable to expect to exchange money or sweat for the privilege to hunt on someone's private lands. Hopefully the private lands permits will redistribute some elk back onto accessible public lands. Might not, but it is worth the try.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
218 Posts
Are Walk in access lands considered "private" I am still trying to figure out these Private cow tags. How does someone actually be benefit from them more than a regular tag? In the past you could do the same thing(the yearly Chalk creek debacle clearly comes to mind) by buying access for hunting on private land within your hunt area. I can see it a big win for the private land owners that now all essentially have ability to sell access for a cow hunts that would last from august 1 to January 31.

unsure if it will actually do anything other than create a market for private land owners to be able to sell access more.
This +1

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
316 Posts
Honestly, it is hard to believe so many want something for free. Having first hand knowledge with the damage elk do to private lands and the costs associated with that damage, it seems very reasonable to expect to exchange money or sweat for the privilege to hunt on someone's private lands.
I'm not sure I'm interpreting what you wrote correctly. Are you saying that joe-public-hunter is the only one wanting something for free? I haven't followed the threads really close on this, but in what I have read, I haven't seen a lot of clamoring by joe-public for free access as it would seem you are indicating "so many want". I've seen far more talk about trespass fees for access than I have seen cries for free access to the public's resource that happens to exist on private land at a certain point in time.

I would think that a rational landowner could see a win-win in this rather than creating an us-vs-them paradigm. If elk are causing damage or reducing resources from the land, why wouldn't the rational LO want the elk harassed off the land. Unless they don't actually want the elk gone - because they enjoy their own private hunting with unpressured elk, or appreciate the revenue from selling access? You can't keep your cake and eat it too. One or the other.

It seems to me that if LO's want that private access or ability to sell premium bull access, then keep that, and quit complaining about elk damage since they want them there. If LO's don't want them there because the damage is too great, then welcome the public hunter, and charge a fee to at least offset the hassle of screening, tracking, monitoring, cleaning up, etc, and push the elk off and reduce their numbers overall. And if LO's don't allow enough hunters on their property to adequately address the damage-by-elk issue, then don't come to the State asking for compensation for damage.

I know I sure would like to allow bowhunters onto my 1/2 acre to hunt does! And I would most certainly let them!!! It'd be a bit of a hassle to screen and monitor them, but well worth it to me if the deer numbers could be culled in an urban setting, and they could learn to fear humans again.

Another thought crosses my mind. Why shouldn't these be treated somewhat similar to CWMU's? Sort of a mini-CWMU program? Where LO's can sell access for 90% (or simply sell the tags with the access), but need to grant access to joe-public for 1 in 10, or 4 in 10. At least, they need to do so if they want to ask for compensation for crop or fence damage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
146 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Seven, you might very well be correct. I'll ask the same question I ask everyone complaining about this. What would you propose be done to solve the issue of such a high percentage of the population on private lands?

I haven't even got a response yet, let alone a more viable option than this one being proposed.

I'll say it again, I'm not sure it will accomplish the desired outcome, but at least they are trying something.
A lot of people see my pessimism and overanalyzing as complaining. I'm not complaining but just trying to figure out what the thought process was for this action. I realize that I sometimes don't always see all the viewpoints and that is why I opened this thread. I am also trying to figure out how to use it to my advantage if I am able to.

Goofy's point about not taking the private numbers into the count is interesting.

The whole private land and how to manage the herds on them is something that I don't think we can ever fully make everyone happy. There is just to many variables.

I do stand by my statement that this is a big win for landowners. Whether that is bad or good is open for interpretation. At this point I don't know if it is a win for hunters though. Like others have said we will have to see how it goes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,827 Posts
It's potentially a HUGE win for landowners. If you are a landowner on the Wasatch and you have elk on your property, my guess is you, your family, friends, and basically anyone you want will be able to draw/buy over the counter one of these tags to hunt elk on your property.

Additionally, if you don't want to hunt yourself, you can probably make a little money on this allowing others to hunt, although I don't think the market will be as high as previously guessed for that.

You also have the option to just let people come hunt if you'd like as well.

Finally, you can do nothing. Nobody can force you to participate in this at all.

Basically, landowners have all the power here, and I agree it is a major win for them. Hopefully it has its desired outcome, and then it can become a real win for hunters as well. We shall see...
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,441 Posts
Honestly, it is hard to believe so many want something for free. Having first hand knowledge with the damage elk do to private lands and the costs associated with that damage, it seems very reasonable to expect to exchange money or sweat for the privilege to hunt on someone's private lands.
B-I-N-G-O!!!!! Packout - you get my vote for best post of the year!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,638 Posts
I think there is a parallel here between the damaged caused by elk on private land and the feral hog issues in Texas. I see people complaining regularly when they find out it is so hard to find access for free in Texas to hunt a problem animal that everybody wants removed. But from the landowner's perspective, it only takes one bad egg hunter to cause significant damage (not to mention potential liability should the moron hurt themselves). That risk is what most landowner access fees cover. It only takes one idiot suing for breaking his leg hopping a fence to eat up tens of thousands in legal fees to the landowner--even if the LO wins. It takes a lot of respectful paying hunters to make up for that 1 in a thousand bozo. Great example in Utah county is Mill Pond right off I-15. They used to allow the public to fish, swim, picnic and it was a pretty awesome place. A teenager drowned (at arguably no fault of the landowner) but it cost them an enormous chunk of money in legal fees and settlement costs. The result? They no longer allow access. On a lesser level, how many people have at one time had access to private land, only to lose it because someone else abused it by littering, gate/fence damage, or other smaller impact stupid things that occur all the time? I know I have, just last year in fact.

These are IMO the main reasons LOs charge access fees.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,430 Posts
I think there is a parallel here between the damaged caused by elk on private land and the feral hog issues in Texas. I see people complaining regularly when they find out it is so hard to find access for free in Texas to hunt a problem animal that everybody wants removed. But from the landowner's perspective, it only takes one bad egg hunter to cause significant damage (not to mention potential liability should the moron hurt themselves). That risk is what most landowner access fees cover. It only takes one idiot suing for breaking his leg hopping a fence to eat up tens of thousands in legal fees to the landowner--even if the LO wins. It takes a lot of respectful paying hunters to make up for that 1 in a thousand bozo. Great example in Utah county is Mill Pond right off I-15. They used to allow the public to fish, swim, picnic and it was a pretty awesome place. A teenager drowned (at arguably no fault of the landowner) but it cost them an enormous chunk of money in legal fees and settlement costs. The result? They no longer allow access. On a lesser level, how many people have at one time had access to private land, only to lose it because someone else abused it by littering, gate/fence damage, or other smaller impact stupid things that occur all the time? I know I have, just last year in fact.

These are IMO the main reasons LOs charge access fees.
I, as many of you am kinda am sitting here scratching my head of just how this will or could work??? But this post really has a lot of truth in it! WELL STATED Johnnycake! It may ruffle a feather or more, but how quick we forget about the kid that was killed by the Bear some years back and the state (us) paid out! You can bank on someone getting hurt, lost, or something along them lines, while afield. And the way things are these days it is someone else's fault.

Now.. I have not read a plan how this is being mapped out to work, or if there even is a plan. But back east the land owners are paid per acre for the use of their land for hunting. Surprisingly the places I have been have been very clean and litter free. I hope if this is the direction it is pointed that we all can respect the land and owner.
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top