And when it comes to private land, that is the way it is suppose to be.


First of all, it can be nearly impossible to get an "accurate" count of deer in this area. I've tried it and it can be a real pain in the butt, and I use a helicopter. Secondly paying the state for deer that are on high fenced ranches is stupid, it really is. The only time the state wants to claim ownership of the deer is when hunting season roles around and it time to charge for lic. and stamps.

If the state ever charges landowners for the deer on their property then they (the state) better start taking financial responsibilty for "their property". The day I can send the state a bill for the $5,000+ in crop damages that their deer do each year, is the day they can start billing private ranches for "entrapping state owned deer".

If the state wants to charge a private landowner X amount of $$, then the state better be prepared to pay for the millions of dollars that deer cause in damages each year.

TX. High.........
I am sorry!!! Didn't realize that those high fences were there to "protect" property. I'll be, if that don't beat a hen peckin' on frozen biscuit! Good thing them fences are there then, otherwise the deer on the outside would want to come in there and eat those food plots intended for the deer on the inside!!!
Me.....I like my fish in open water. Barrels are just too confining....but each hunter to his ability.
Guess we'll just agree to disagree. Reading some of your other posts, not a surprise.

Hope the AZ and Utah problems work out for all. Just hate to hunters have to engage in such with other hunters.

Just curious, what the hell are you talking about?? Your starting to jump from one topic to another. When I talked about crops in my above post I was referring to corn,grain, etc. which is totally different then high fenced ranches. I was just saying that if the state wants to get paid for "its property" then the state better be ready to take responsiblilty for it. The state shouldnt be able to choose when it owns the property and when it dosent ex. getting $ from lic. but not paying for automobile damage.

Well actually alot of people put up high fences because they dont want deer coming from surrounding areas onto their property.

I am grateful for the opportunity to hunt elk in the state of Colorado. But I also feel I earn the right to do so when I pay the price they are charging me for my tag.And I do not think that I should have to pay an outfitter on top of that if I wish to go it alone. I have spent $1200 to hunt elk 3 of the last 4 years and taken 1 bull elk, but that does not include all the other money I spend when I come to the state to hunt.The res. of Colorado benefit from the money I and others spend in their state, the money from the tags goes toward the herds and the habitat and their management. Res. should have first choice but the non-res. improve the opportunities for the res.

As far as the outfitters go I do not think they should have any influence on the ability of a non-res. to draw a tag on public land, but if after a non-res. has been drawn, then they should have the ability to hire a guide if they choose to do so.

Colorado must be doing something right look at the GREAT # OF ELK they have with the system they have used for the past several years. Maybe AZ. and NM. should take a closer look at what they have accomplished.

Indiana-I wish it was that easy. The issue is AZ has very little acreage that is prime elk habitat. They don't do well in the cactus and that is most of the state. Colorado, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming etc have rain. We get very little. I would bet that our herds are close to maximized for the habitat we have.

The situation is the same here in Nevada also. We have tons of land, but very little rain, and the habitat is less than desirable. Thats the reason tags cost so much. The Department of Wildlife has to get money somehow, and the state is broke in the first place. The Department of Wildlife gets very little funding from the state general fund, and we have no income tax either, so the majority of the operating funds comes from the sale of licenses, tags, stamps, permits for guiding, etc.

The bottom line is that when a state is 89% public land, there are not very many people who are into wildlife management on the private end of things. What little private land there is - is tied up in hay fields and cattle operations. Ranchers are not going to spend the time to try to manage wildlife AND livestock. There is no guarentee that people will buy a hunt, but people have to buy beef. So, no private land to hunt, except in very isolated circumstances, leads to the state running the wildlife, which leads to the state controlling the wildlife population through cost. Supply and demand, there is not enough supply to satisfy everyone's demands, so prices go up, welcome to Economics 101.

That is one thing that I've noticed about western landowners, they do not realize the potential that wildlife and hunting has. I dont know why they dont manage for both wildlife and cattle, most of the time if you manage one then it benefits the other. And yes there is a guarentee that people will buy hunts, if you get your name out there then your going to book hunts. And sure people "have to buy beef" but now a days with the prices so low, most of the time it seems like your giving it away.

Most of the time down here you can get the same price for a 5 day trophy buck hunt as you can for 3-5 cattle. Out in Arizona and Nevada it can take up to 100 acres just to support 1 cow, it takes less then that to support elk and besides 1 elk is worth alot more then 1 cow. If the landowners out west would realize the potential from wildlife they would have alot less worries and it would open up more oppurtunites for hunters.

Indiana elkhunter - colorado has crap for bulls. ALL quantity NO quality. the only places were you can get big bulls in colorado is along the utah or arizona borders.

New here on the board and boy is this subject a sore one!

I hunt in Colorado and very seldom take elk in the "public no draw areas" (second gun season when everything worth hunting has been shot at or run over). I too complained and still do when the licensce went from $ 250.00 to $ 480.00 on so called "Federal" Land.

But I still go, and as most hunters do support less small businesses, I hear guys say "I'll bring my own food, haul my own gas etc. and I've even thought of just going and watching the other hunters and saving my $ 500.00 and just film the adventure. I've taken my fair share of game in my time and now I just hope I can share the experience with my boys when they get old enough. Heck, if I win the Lottery I'll just take up residence in one of these areas and hunt for $ 35.00 on "Federal" land.

By the way, If it is and was OK to drill for oil in Texas and send it everywhere else in the U.S. for less than I pay for it .... you have my permission to drill anywhere in the U.S.!!!! Oil derricks haven't affected the deer down here so why would it hurt a grizzly?

NVMike, now unless I'm mistaken the Arizona Colorado border is about the size of a pencil tip isn't it? How many elk can you fit on it? At least they'd be easy to find.

Duroman, I just wanted to respond to your post. As you can tell this is a subject that itches at me good. By the tone of your post I got the impression you are irked by the hunting opportunities on Federal land. You see the land has got nothing to do with it. A Texas resident has as much right to hunt Federal land in Colorado as a Colorado resident. BUT...you gotta get a tag to harvest a state funded, state managed animal. That costs more for non-res's than residents. Remember non-res's pay quite a bit on tags but as residents we still pay the taxes that go to elected and appointed officials who run the departments and make decisions on the animals. You've got a lottery system to pay for, you've got to pay all the costs of actually printing licenses on a large scale, you've got state employed biologists and experts to pay for, decision makers to pay for, you've got law enforcement to pay for that make sure game laws are being followed, and all law enforcement that investigate crimes and prosecute law breakers. All those people are state employees and ALL are state funded. In reality no one truely "owns" the animal. It's more like who has dominion over them. In this case it's the state. The land they are on has got nothin to do with it.

Because based on the Federal Land, should be Federal animals then once a deer or elk jumps on private property does that mean the property owner owns it? What if it's on state land, state residents only?