Maybe Hunting Leases On Private Lands Not Such A Great Idea
September 15, 2008
The ideal thing for hunters is for every landowner to leave his or her land open to hunting during the various seasons. We know that doesn’t happen for a variety of reasons, one of them being the realization that in some cases a landowner can rake in a sizable hunk of change by selling the hunting rights to his land. In some cases, landowners might be having to rethink that strategy as destruction to crops might be more costly than what they get for a lease.
Back last February, a Moffat County rancher named Rodney Culverwell, started killing elk that he says were destroying his property. He was charged with 16 counts and found guilty on 4 felony counts of illegally killing elk, etc.. He could face jail time and hefty fines of up to $400,000.
Elk trampling crops, knocking down fences and being costly to ranchers in Northwestern Colorado isn’t really new news. Taking the actions Culverwell did is.
Some of what Culverwell claimed in court and even prior to his shooting the elk is that the Colorado Division of Wildlife didn’t do enough to help him protect his property and better manage the herds of elk. Perhaps he is right to some degree but what did Culverwell himself do to help himself other than shoot the elk that were mangling his fence?
Northwest Colorado is promoted as prime elk hunting. Some ads say it is the best in the world. Therefore, landowners can demand pretty inflated prices for a hunting lease. According to testimony at Culverwell’s trial, last year he charged $80,000 for a hunting lease on his own ranch. One would have to begin recalculating the business decision to take the $80,000 considering what happened.
When you sell the lease, as a landowner you may not have the control you would like to get the number of elk off your land. If you were to leave your land open to public hunting, even though sometimes the negatives that come with that angers the landowner, the obvious question then becomes which is the better business choice?
The trend that is sweeping the nation is for hunting leases. I’m not fond of them but understand the why’s and wherefore’s. From a landowner’s perspective, I want to have full control over access to my land. As a hunter, I want affordable access to land so I can hunt. Both the landowner and the hunter, along with the fish and game departments need to manage these game populations which requires a three-way cooperative effort, one that doesn’t always happen.
So, maybe the idea of a hunting lease on private land is now starting to come back and bite the landowner because wildlife managers aren’t able to control populations through the issuing of tags. With exploding populations of game that can be destructive, the landowner is now having to swallow added expenses from the damage caused by the animals.
Some, especially in Colorado, think the answer is to import wolves to control the elk populations. There’s a lot of problems if this should happen and one that I certainly do not support. It’s really a matter of exchanging one set of problems for another. If the elk numbers were reduced, unmanaged populations of wolves would turn around a destroy the ranchers livestock, etc.
Part of the problem landowners face now from wolves is that advocates for sprinkling wolves around the world, continue their lies and deceptive practices. Many people were reluctantly convinced that wolves should be brought into the Yellowstone area. They were told that once populations reached a certain level, state management would take over so that there would be minimal property damage and human conflicts. Once that goal was reached and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service attempted to turn control of the wolf over to the states, wolf advocate groups sued to stop that action.
Now areas in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming have some serious wolf issues and with things tied up in the courts for what could be decades, why would anybody in their right mind willingly bring wolves into the state of Colorado? And why should anyone believe what these groups say now that want wolves brought into the state?
To make wildlife management programs work, requires cooperation from everyone - landowners, hunters and state game departments. Mess up any one of those influences and problems begin to surface.
Tom Remington
Check Out Related Articles
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
We feature the latest news, events and politics effecting the sports of hunting, fishing, and all outdoor activities in North America.
Bringing in Wolves to Colorado is not the answer. Issueing more tags to land owners and working with the landowner to prompt him to allow hunting by the fish and game is a much more effective way to control populations rather than to bring in a much more severe problem like the Wolf.
I agree Jim, But let the Coloradon’s find out the hard way because until they who want it down their get it and see the wolves destruction of other species first hand, feel threatened while out on hikes, or over night camping and watch the wolves prey base get wiped out for them selves they will not believe it other wise, and some stubborn ones still will deny it to the end.
Greg,
I guess your right if they want Wolves let them have them.
Then maybe they will see what it’s like here in Wyoming and Idaho.
If the population of elk is not being managed by the number of elk harvested by hunters (public or private) in a particular area, why not open an additional season just for that region?
Sell the elk tags for half-price. The meat goes to charitable and public institutions (prisons, state hospitals, etc.). The rack and the joy of the hunt goes to the hunter. The hides are sold for tanning and the cash goes to a fund to reimburse ranchers who suffer elk damage.
Charitable and Public institutions might not be able to utilize the meat because of Lead Tainting from the bullet!
Just a thought.
There are more “severe” problems without wolves. Wolves are supposed to be here; they are a natural part of the ecosystem. What about that fact are you not willing to accept?
Aldo Leopold. One of the best essays ever written…
“My own conviction on this score dates from the day I saw a wolf die. We were eating lunch on a high rimrock, at the foot of which a turbulent river elbowed its way. We saw what we thought was a doe fording the torrent, her breast awash in white water. When she climbed the bank toward us and shook out her tail, we realized our error: it was a wolf. A half-dozen others, evidently grown pups, sprang from the willows and all joined in a welcoming melee of wagging tails and playful maulings. What was literally a pile of wolves writhed and tumbled in the center of an open flat at the foot of our rimrock.
In those days we had never heard of passing up a chance to kill a wolf. In a second we were pumping lead into the pack, but with more excitement than accuracy: how to aim a steep downhill shot is always confusing. When our rifles were empty, the old wolf was down, and a pup was dragging a leg into impassable slide-rocks.
We reached the old wolf in time to watch a fierce green fire dying in her eyes. I realized then, and have known ever since, that there was something new to me in those eyes - something known only to her and to the mountain. I was young then, and full of trigger-itch; I thought that because fewer wolves meant more deer, that no wolves would mean hunters’ paradise. But after seeing the green fire die, I sensed that neither the wolf nor the mountain agreed with such a view.
Since then I have lived to see state after state extirpate its wolves. I have watched the face of many a newly wolfless mountain, and seen the south-facing slopes wrinkle with a maze of new deer trails. I have seen every edible bush and seedling browsed, first to anaemic desuetude, and then to death. I have seen every edible tree defoliated to the height of a saddlehorn. Such a mountain looks as if someone had given God a new pruning shears, and forbidden Him all other exercise. In the end the starved bones of the hoped-for deer herd, dead of its own too-much, bleach with the bones of the dead sage, or molder under the high-lined junipers.
I now suspect that just as a deer herd lives in mortal fear of its wolves, so does a mountain live in mortal fear of its deer. And perhaps with better cause, for while a buck pulled down by wolves can be replaced in two or three years, a range pulled down by too many deer may fail of replacement in as many decades. So also with cows. The cowman who cleans his range of wolves does not realize that he is taking over the wolf’s job of trimming the herd to fit the range. He has not learned to think like a mountain. Hence we have dustbowls, and rivers washing the future into the sea.
But that was damned near a century ago. Understandings have changed since then. Even Leopold’s who later came to understand better about removing top predators from an ecosystem.
Lead Ammunition in Jeopardy in Washington State!
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Please Stand-Up and Make Your Voice Heard!
The lead ammunition you use for hunting as well as target and competitive shooting will be banned from purchase, use and ownership in the state of Washington if the state’s Department of Ecology has its way. Lead ammunition is a target of a series of recommendations in the “Lead Chemical Action Plan” prepared by the Department of Ecology.
The plan is open for public comment until Monday, October 6. The plan and information about submitting comments are available at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/swfa/pbt/leadcap/.
Lead shot has been banned in waterfowl hunting. Most recently, California passed a law that prohibits hunters from using lead ammunition in areas within the range of the California condor. A symposium was held in June in Boise, Idaho about the effects of lead ammunition on wildlife and humans. Most of the speakers supported a ban on lead ammunition, regardless of the cost, performance, and availability of substitutes. The Department of Ecology plan is yet another effort to remove lead ammunition nationwide.
Please take the time to submit comments to the Department of Ecology and to Governor Chris Gregoire (D). Let the Governor know that there is no adequate substitute for lead ammunition and that any affects on humans and wildlife do not justify a ban as recommended by her Department of Ecology. Governor Gregoire can be reached by phone at (360) 902-4111, by fax at (360) 753-4110, or click here to send email. The Governor can also be reached by U.S. Mail at: Governor Chris Gregoire, Office of the Governor, P.O. Box 40002, Olympia, WA 98504-0002.
We shall never achieve harmony with land, any more than we shall achieve absolute justice or liberty for people. In these higher aspirations, the important thing is not to achieve but to strive.
Aldo Leopold