hikers need hunters and vice versa : Outside Magazine

You are correct that many people don't actually know any ranchers. But for the record, I'm not one of them. I've been thick with ranchers and the men and women who actually do the work for them. And that is where I get a lot of my opinions.

There is a rancher we have run into over the past several years where my bro in AZ hunts a couple of different units, AZ trust lands. The first time we talked with him I had just shot a coyote and he said "great go shoot some more". We've gotten to where we know each other and he'll ask us if we've seen certain cows with calves or if we've seen cattle in certain parts of the country where there shouldn't be any. He also lets us know where he has seen the elk or where the fresh sign is. He has told us certain water sources the elk are currently using, he'll tell us areas where there is no water at the time and save us the time of checking.
It's probably very different than ranchers with a large piece of private land and they do everything they can to keep hunters from accessing bordering public land any way possible even if it's illegal.
 
How many grazers do you know who want to see public lands remain in public hands? Not saying there aren't any. Just curious about them in the tent.
Numbers wise, I'd say the majority of the one's I worked with in the past would prefer public lands to remain as they are. And I worked with more than a few... Reason being is that most have a lot in common with the one Buzz mentioned. I'd bet most of those that I knew would rather have a discussion as to the type of grazing management to employ versus whom now owns that piece of dirt...
 
Don't muddy the water with PLT and Monument designation, they aren't the same issue. The monument designation creates much less worry for existing lease holders, in particular when the managing agencies don't change under monument designation (like the current ones in Utah and Nevada).

As JR has pointed out, there are many ranches owned and controlled by those that would be off the rails happy with PLT and fully support it. I can point you to dozens of large landowner types, agribusinesses, grazing associations, corporate ranches, etc. that would be very happy to see PLT happen.

There is a clear separation on the issue with landowners who would support, and who would oppose, PLT.

All I can tell you, is that if I were the owner of a small family ranch with a few federal leases, I would NOT be on the same team as the corporate ranches that have been continually trying, and successfully, squeezing out the family ranchers for decades. PLT would help facilitate the squeeze being put on the family farms and ranches even quicker...and why, I'm sure, the lady I talked to was smart enough to figure out PLT would kill her family ranch.
I can talk myself blue here and the locals do not get it. Hell,I got called a commie(Red) the other day and the guy was lucky...
Ranchers still think they will get their leases and seem to think they are the GW Ranch or something.And most of them I know either outfit/guide themselves or most of the family does...on public lands.
Land semi-rich & brain poor if you ask me.
And the folks with no land think orange coolaide is swell and gubbermint bad.
Even folks like the ones who bought the Great Western Ranch(300kac) & the HH would not just be bidding with other trophy ranch/tax write off ranches.It will be with BP,Royal Dutch Shell,Exxon,and who ever the mining companies are calling themselves this week . Peabody/Anaconda/Norton/Phelps/Dodge...etc....
 
Last edited:
I can talk myself blue here and the locals do not get it. Hell,I got called a commie(Red) the other day and the guy was lucky...
Ranchers still think they will get their leases and seem to think they are the GW Ranch or something.And most of them I know either outfit/guide themselves or most of the family does...on public lands.
Land semi-rich & brain poor if you ask me.
And the folks with no land think orange coolaide is swell and gubbermint bad.
Even folks like the ones who bought the Great Western Ranch(300kac) & the HH would not just be bidding with other trophy ranch/tax write off ranches.It will be with BP,Royal Dutch Shell,Exxon,and who ever the mining companies are calling themselves this week . Peabody/Anaconda/Norton/Phelps/Dodge...etc....

That's been my experience. I'm sure there are exceptions. Also, big oil doesn't always buy for the minerals. Seems some of them buy as a trophy ranch (and I don't mean like trophy animal's, I mean like a trophy wife; bragging rights and a place to show off and wear boots). Or some tax deal.
 
That's been my experience. I'm sure there are exceptions. Also, big oil doesn't always buy for the minerals. Seems some of them buy as a trophy ranch (and I don't mean like trophy animal's, I mean like a trophy wife; bragging rights and a place to show off and wear boots). Or some tax deal.
Water. Lots of ranches will be bought by those types of entities for the water rights that go with them.
 
You mean water isn't just for fly fishing guides and irrigation?
Somebody's wise to the west's future (maybe not so distant) investment commodity:cool:
I am going to meeting tomorrow on this very subject, The Augustine Plains Water Grab.
Dickhead from Italy inherited a ranch & wants to pump 54kacft and pipe it to what ever market desires.Would ruin most folks and the ranching game. Most wells get 1 1/2 - 3 acft yr alotment . I get 3 on 2 excellent wells only 300ftdp. These 14 wells are said to go 3k.
Would dry up my well 75 mi away possibly.
Been years of work fighting it.2 decisions against by State Eng. & now they wrapped under a different gimmick with new State Eng.
SOS.We do have the HH ranch,Farr Ranch etc,the counties of Catron & Socorro,most locals & their public trough holders.FS & BLM are also protestants.

And the discription of Trophy Ranch is spot on. The tax write off is huge on losses.The GW has been raped.Totally overgrazed in 2 yrs ,all the long time cowboys & families gone.
And the outfitter hunting problems they bring is out of hand. My giant herds moved.I'm 5 mi from south end of this sprawling ranch.
 
Water. Lots of ranches will be bought by those types of entities for the water rights that go with them.

So I've heard that a certain T Boone Pickens is one step ahead of most people regarding water rights in the south south west and west.
 
You folks are right about water. I totally forgot about it. But now you remind me of the post-script to "The Big Short" and what the smartest guy in the room had moved on to with his foresight: Water.

If it all comes true then a great deal of thanks will be due to the greens/environmentalists who spent lives fighting for federal reserved water rights so fish could swim and critters could drink. Indians will be holding some controls too. Treaties that say "So long as the rivers run . . ." will have new meaning. It's old, but check out "Should Rivers Have Running" by Reed out of northern Idaho. Kind of like Should Trees Have Standing.

Predictive analytics has these people finding that which is free and abundant, then reducing it in quantity to the point where it can be sold for profit, all while obtaining rights to it. (Air is next.) It's the history of America. A future generation of working class tools will carry water for these shysters saying "They worked hard/smart for what they got so I won't be jealous and want to tax them or regulate them, all so some welfare queen can get something for nothing. Now here's $5.00. Give me another glass of water."

Oh well, maybe global warming will shift monsoons to north America and foil their evil plans. All that melted ice and bigger oceans have to increase snow and rain, right? Please?

By the way, I used to tell people to turn off the water while shaving and brushing. Not any more. Ever drop "conserved" just encourages more growth. Waste away and save the planet????
 
A little scenario.
The very agencies that would have their land transferred to somebody/something else also hold water rights. Water rights CAN & DO under many circumstances transfer with sale or transfer of the real property.
SO, who would get these water rights and what would they do if they held them. How would the use possibly change from the use the water right had while held by the USFS, BLM BOR, etc.?
How might the change in use affect the public?
Not just hunters, hikers, anglers, irrigators, pot growers, and folks who don't hunt western public lands.
All the public. It's a big question - a lot of uncharted territory.
Thus, if you don't really care about TPL, at least do your children a favor (if of childbearing age). Tell 'em to be lawyers, there could be a lotta interesting work in water rights in a couple decades or less.

Now about mineral rights.....
 
Of course there is the little problem of explaining to millions that the faucet really isn't where the water comes from....
Anyways, hunters need hikers......
 
You mean water isn't just for fly fishing guides and irrigation?
Somebody's wise to the west's future (maybe not so distant) investment commodity:cool:
Nearly a decade ago they were already looking into piping water from Snake Valley, NV (near Great Basin Nat Park) and parts north to Vegas. Gold companies have been buying ranches in N/NE NV for awhile mostly for the water rights, presumably for their mining operations, but I'm guessing they'd sell the water too if the price was right.

I have not seen it spelled out specifically, but water rights do not have to be transferred with surface ownership. I know for a fact there are multiple cases of privately held water rights on public surface. Many a grazing court case in NV has hinged on this. One of the devil in the details is that even if the owner of the water right does not change with the surface ownership, the state would still be in charge of managing/approving water rights claims or changes to them. I'm guessing if the water rights did not transfer over with PLT alot of "closed basins" for water right claims would become open and a whole lot of new claims would be had by new landowners...
 
Last edited:
Nearly a decade ago they were already looking into piping water from Snake Valley, NV (near Great Basin Nat Park) and parts north to Vegas. Gold companies have been buying ranches in N/NE NV for awhile mostly for the water rights, presumably for their mining operations, but I'm guessing they'd sell the water too if the price was right.

I have not seen it spelled out specifically, but water rights do not have to be transferred with surface ownership. I know for a fact there are multiple cases of privately held water rights on public surface. Many a grazing court case in NV has hinged on this. One of the devil in the details is that even if the owner of the water right does not change with the surface ownership, the state would still be in charge of managing/approving water rights claims or changes to them. I'm guessing if the water rights did not transfer over with PLT alot of "closed basins" for water right claims would become open and a whole lot of new claims would be had by new landowners...

You are correct, H2O rights DO NOT HAVE TO BE transferred - but they can and are at times. I spoke with an attorney, about this, who deals with water rights for an NGO before I posted. Specifically because I know enough about water rights to know I don't know enough about water rights. One of the most complex things that exists.
So , again 1_Pointer, you are correct, the devil is in the details.
TPL and water rights is a pandora's box. For the American public in general.
 
Water is more valuable than land in the arid west, due to the economics of scarcity: supply vs demand. Example: The Oroville dam in CA that is @ risk, was built to catch and supply water for the Los Angeles area, several hundred miles and multiple drainage basins/mountain ranges away. If you hope to understand the realities of land, politics, $ and power in the west, you must be versed in water history and law. I found Beyond the 100th Meridian by Stegner and Cadillac Desert by Reisner to be good sources, both are dated.

Without water, resources cannot be developed or sustained. Drilling, mining, grazing, timber, commercial, residential: all require water. All those except timber and some grazing require the purchase of someone else's water rights. And every drop of water that falls in the west has a long series of owners: 1st rights, 2nd, etc. @ the time the laws deciding which states got how much river water, the amount of water available was grossly overestimated for political purposes. Now there is never enough in rivers to meet the legal obligations to states inc. CA and AZ.

In the west, land w no water is dust. Water w no land is more valuable than gold. If public lands provided nothing beyond watershed, they would still be targets for industrial takeover.
 
Wiskey isfor drinking,water is for fighting. An OLD NM saying.Like back to 1590 old.
Water rights in NM are on deeds but have to be transferred in State Eng.Office.& can be sold I am told.

Same thing is going on in CA where the Resnick family of new $ & Fiji Water have way over drilled the wine country with deep wells & dried their neighbors out. Republicans who are on the Clinton & everyone elses guest list along with the rest of the Agenda21/New World order/Old world order/Hamptons folks who really get what they want.
Like trophy ranches in WY,NM&MT and the estate at Aspen & Vail.

I do have a match that will burn your new court order you bought with your lawyer.
 
As they say out here, whiskey's fer drinkin' and water's fer fightin'.

It would help if we'd quit breeding like rabbits. We've over-populated our range.
 
You are correct, H2O rights DO NOT HAVE TO BE transferred - but they can and are at times. I spoke with an attorney, about this, who deals with water rights for an NGO before I posted. Specifically because I know enough about water rights to know I don't know enough about water rights. One of the most complex things that exists.
So , again 1_Pointer, you are correct, the devil is in the details.
TPL and water rights is a pandora's box. For the American public in general.
Mix federal ownership/management of surface and state allocation/management of water and things can get sporty fast! The folks in DC should have listened that that crazy, one-armed dude about setting up western states on drainage boundaries...
 
We are seeing water rights and water availability play out on a much broader scale here in Washington in the last year. Several courts cases have basically killed all rural development (may be a good thing), exempt wells (single family domestic) may not be exempt anymore, and the Counties may be required to tie building permits to water rights (as opposed to the State regulating it). Even in a state that's half rain forest there's already not enough to go around.
 
Montana HB 339 - Montana Trout Unlimited has a current action alert out, as we speak about, water rights legislation proposed currently in our session. This stuff will only become more frequent and more intense as western urban/suburban sprawl increases. The originators of the TPL idea, uberwealthy-powerful-connected-purposed %$#@#$'s know this. They also know short sighted, simpled minded, anti big-gubment types will swallow their BS hook line and sinker. Interesting times.......
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,155
Messages
1,949,077
Members
35,056
Latest member
mmarshall173
Back
Top