Private land bighorn sheep access program proposal

[Oak]

The updated access proposal and meeting agenda have now been posted on the Commission website. The topic is scheduled for 2:15pm July 9, although it may begin earlier depending on how quickly other agenda topics are completed.

The only major revision made from the draft presented at the May meeting is that the private and public seasons are no longer required to be at the same time of year. The original proposal said that private hunters would hunt the first year, and public hunters would hunt the subsequent 2 or 3 years, depending on whether the ranch chose a 2/1 or 3/1 allocation, and the season dates for both would be the same.

The new proposal says that both public and private hunts may occur the same year, but the public hunts must be of equal or greater length than the private hunts, and they must occur first. So we can now have a situation where the public gets an August or September season and the private hunters get a November rut hunt.

The Commission asked CPW staff at the May meeting if they could consider imposing the 5 year public draw waiting period on successful private license holders, just as is imposed on successful public license holders. They said that they would consider it, but ultimately it was not included in the current proposal.

The "Known Opportunity License Forecast" presented on the last page of the proposal is so askew I look forward to seeing whether staff can present it to the Commission with a straight face. The basis of their numbers is "Maximum off-take rate per Colorado Bighorn Sheep Management Plan recommendations." Which means to say that their numbers in no way reflect what will actually be issued.

The management plan recommendations call for an annual ram off-take of 2%-5% of the total population. In reality, annual off-take statewide has averaged around 2% for the last several years. Annual off-take on Trinchera Ranch has been approximately 0.6% (2.5 rams per year), so for them to say that we might now get 12 ram licenses per year is absurd, especially given that the ranch, not CPW staff, will have final say in how many licenses are issued. And the 32 ewe licenses per year on Trinchera is even more absurd given that in 2014 the ranch asked for and received a reduction in ewe licenses from 10 per year to zero.

The table shows a current S51 public allocation of 4 ram licenses a year (48 over 12 years), yet the actual allocation is 6 ram licenses per year (72 over 12 years).

They chose to not calculate some of the ranches at a 2/1 allocation because they "may not participate" at that level. This makes the gain in licenses at 3/1 appear greater than it is.

 

[Oak]

I realize that the post above probably makes little sense to most of you. Suffice to say that it's lipstick on a pig, and the lipstick is stolen. But I was told to keep my mouth shut, so I guess I better do so if I ever want to draw a sheep license in this state!

 

[Big Fin]

I. But I was told to keep my mouth shut, so I guess I better do so if I ever want to draw a sheep license in this state!

The world is seldom changed by well behaved people. Speak wise (and committed) one.

 

[BuzzH]

^^^This.

 

[Oak]

Purely coincidental, but the owner of Trinchera did donate $200,000 last year to the PAC that ran attack ads against the opponent of our current Governor (who appoints DNR and CPW senior staff).

 

[putm2sleep]

Yer right - the article makes no sense, at all???

 

[putm2sleep]

Thanks for, and appreciate the information. All for one one for all. Almost fear writing the commission
Results in black balling on the draw?
Q;
Hasn't this already been happening with private land elk, and deer ?

 

[antler1]

I am submitting this response on behalf of Mike Powell, Trinidad, CO

I want to respond to some of the negative comments about the proposed private land sheep access program.
ASSERTION: There will be a net loss of public sheep hunting opportunities.
FACT: Purgatoire Ranch currently issues one ram tag under the existing RFW, 1:1 private/public split. They would now go to either a 2:1 or 3:1 split depending on which option they chose under the new program- a SMALL net loss, true. However, Trinchera Ranch will go from their current 9:1 down to 3:1, a nice win for public hunters. In addition, and more importantly, other landowners in S51 and S61 will for the first time , be giving access to sheep resources that are not utilized now. The result is a net increase in public opportunity. Also, all ewe tags would be allocated to the public, with some designated solely as youth tags.


ASSERTION: This program is a give-away to rich, greedy landowners wanting to sell sheep hunts.
FACT: Some private tags will be sold, sure. I know of at least two landowners, however, whose main interest is to have the chance to hunt sheep on their own property. For most of the owners in S51 group, this will most likely be one license every four years. As for them being rich, yes- they have a lot of money, every one of them. Premium wildlife properties aren’t owned by the guy at the convenience store down the street. I, for one, would rather see rich, secure hands in control of these ranches than to have a developer cut them up into 35 acre pieces.

ASSERTION: Landowners should be required to do habitat enhancement for sheep.
FACT: Due to the remote and rugged terrain of most sheep areas, habitat enhancement projects are limited in scope and difficult to implement. In general, development of water sources is often a worthwhile goal but is not something that is necessary on the ranches in question. Most of these landowners are currently doing large amounts of habitat treatment some of which will benefit bighorn sheep either directly or indirectly.

FACT: Public land sheep habitat is about maxed out. A private land sheep program will result in MORE areas with MORE hunting opportunities. The sheep resource is the main beneficiary in this program. Petty bickering will only guarantee that the status quo is maintained.

 

[Oak]

Hello Mike Powell, manager of Hill Ranch. I am sure you are happy to see Bobby getting what he has been asking of CPW for years.

You seem to have some reading comprehension issues, likely clouded by your excitement over having sheep hunting on your ranches next year. Let me clear up a couple of your inaccurately stated assertions and facts.

Assertion: There will be a net loss of public sheep hunting opportunities.

Fact: Nobody who posted in this thread said that there would be a net loss of public opportunity.

Fact: Trinchera's 9:1 contract expires this year. That was not on the table for renewal. So the FACT is that they are going from the only options available next year, 1:1 or 0:0, to a 3:1 allocation under the new program. And even if they choose to not participate at 1:1, the public loses only 1 license every 4 years.

Fact: There are two ranches in the current program, Purgatoire and Kiowa Creek. Both will be a net loss of hunting opportunity for the public under the new program.

Fact: The only reason there are sheep resources in S51 and S61 that are not utilized now are because greedy landowners didn't want to participate at 1:1.

Fact: The proposed program was designed to satisfy Louis and Ty only (sorry Bobby), and CPW couldn't care less whether other ranches participate. After all, Louis is the one who hired Stratton-Carpenter and Associates to lobby the Governor for changes to the existing RFW program. You know, the same lobbying group that helped get Hickenlooper re-elected last year. The same lobbying group that hired Cody Wertz last year. You know, the same Cody Wertz that worked for Louis for 4 years to keep the Southern Colorado Transmission Line project from cutting through his ranch. They already had a tight relationship.

Fact: Trinchera asked CPW to reduce ewe licenses on their ranch from 10 to 0 last year and got their wish. Why should we believe that they are now going to agree to 32 ewe licenses per year as CPW suggests in the table above? Only dull people and certain CPW staff would entertain that notion.

Fact: Nobody cares about ewe licenses to the public when the public is getting hosed on ram licenses.

Assertion: The program is a give-away to rich, greedy landowners who want to sell sheep hunts.

Fact: The program is a give-away to rich, greedy landowners. I don't care what they want to do with them. We had an existing program in place that Bobby, Louis, and all the others could have participated in, but they chose to not do so. Tell my why?

Assertion: Landowners should be required to do habitat enhancement for sheep.

Fact: I have never said that, and I don't believe it. And I have never heard any other opponent of the current proposal say that. Do you know what a red herring is?

Assertion: Public land sheep habitat is about maxed out.

Fact: Colorado could support one hell of a lot more bighorn sheep on public lands if we removed domestic sheep from suitable bighorn sheep habitat on public lands. The sheep resource benefits ZERO from this proposal. Landowners benefit greatly, and sportsmen may benefit minimally.

Fact: If bickering guarantees the status quo, I'm going to bicker a whole lot more. Sportsmen are getting screwed in this deal, and only a landowner standing to benefit would see it differently.

 

[Dinkshooter]

Wait ...................Oak I was really hoping to go ewe hunting next year, please stop the bickering!!!

Not sure why Colorado hunters have fallen for the "but the public gets all the cow, doe and ewe licenses on RFW properties" line for so many years? Who cares? I have zero interest in shooting any of them.

I think that is why this sheep program is such a rub with so many. You'd have to be a moron not to see how slanted the elk and deer RFW programs are. Private tags get rifle bugle hunts and November buck hunts while the public gets October and restricted access. Many see this sheep program as a start to correct the wrongs against the public and the state owed resource. If it doesn't happen on this program it will be coming down the line for everything soon, you can see the writing on the walls.

 

[Live4MtnHunts]

Mr. Mike Powell.......I would appreciate a response to this question to better understand the land owner's side of the discussion.

"We had an existing program in place that Bobby, Louis, and all the others could have participated in, but they chose to not do so. Tell my why?"

Thank you in advance for your response.

 

[BuzzH]

First of all, I think its pretty chickenchit for anter1 to post a reply FOR someone else...let those with an opinion speak for themselves, if they dare.

Secondly, this is the exact reason why I hope any state that doesn't have transferable landowner tags and RFW programs, keep them out forever.

What starts out as a way to help landowners for allowing wildlife to use their property, has morphed into a money making scheme for outfitters, landowners, and tag pimps.

Its flat out of control and I agree with dinkshooter, all the landowners are doing by "allowing" the public to hunt does, cows, and ewes, is letting the public manage the wildlife on their private lands. The average guy is a wildlife management tool, and that's all.

I hope that the hunters of Colorado stay the course and demand that these landowners provide equal opportunities for the average guy for rams.

Its wayyy past time that CO residents take back THEIR PUBLIC WILDLIFE.

Good luck to you guys.

 

[antler1]

Dear BuzzH. This is the chickinshit that posted a response to many on this forum for my brother that does not and has never had a computer in his life. I clearly stated whose opinion was being expressed and merely provided an avenue for his viewpoint. As far as calling me or my posting for him as chickinshit, I believe I would much rather respond to you face to face rather than the anonymity of cyberspace.

 

[BuzzH]

Dear antler1, (Mike Powells brother, who doesn't have a computer),

In my family, we all speak for ourselves...maybe its just a Montana thing. I've had a Brother for over 4 and a half decades, and in that time, I've never spoke for him, and vice-versa.

Didn't realize it was such a common practice in Colorado that you'd be all offended. Maybe its just a "Trinidad" thing???

I really don't think that's what has your hackles up though. I think what your all sored up about is that the hunting public in Colorado, and the West in general, are tired of giving their wildlife resources away.

The RFW program in Colorado is a joke, and the perfect example of why the public should NEVER allow these types of programs to ever start. The tag thievery will never end with RFW, and all other tag give-away programs.

This latest issue with the bighorn sheep, is an even bigger joke. Like Oak already stated: "Fact: If bickering guarantees the status quo, I'm going to bicker a whole lot more. Sportsmen are getting screwed in this deal, and only a landowner standing to benefit would see it differently. "

Good luck to the Sportsmen of Colorado, stand up for YOUR wildlife and YOUR hunting opportunities...don't let those that only see wildlife as a dollar sign destroy, steal, and swindle you out of YOUR legacy.

Finally, Mike Powells Brother, as to your comment about the "anonymity of cyberspace"...and face to face comment, I'm not that hard to find. Look me up next time you're in Laramie, tuffie.

 

[Dinkshooter]

http://www.denverpost.com/willoughb...by-sheep-hunters-butt-heads-over-private-land


SCOTT WILLOUGHBY

Willoughby: Sheep hunters butt heads over private land access proposal
It goes without saying that these top-tier sheep tags are difficult to come by

By Scott Willoughby
The Denver Post
POSTED: 07/07/2015 09:29:18 PM MDTADD A COMMENT| UPDATED: ABOUT 10 HOURS AGO


Once more, it would appear, the frequently diverging polarities of politics and wildlife management policy are poised to clash in the chambers of Colorado's Parks and Wildlife Commission. And as is so often the outcome of such conflicts, it seems the humble Colorado sportsman is the one who stands to lose.

At issue at Thursday's commission meeting in Frisco is a proposed overhaul to the existing Ranching for Wildlife (RFW) program as it applies to bighorn sheep. And while few hunters may know the details of the current program, much less the proposed changes, each of the 14,838 hunters who applied for the 252 bighorn licenses in Colorado last year would do well to pay attention to how Thursday's votes are cast.

It goes without saying that these top-tier tags are difficult to come by. Of those who apply, most will never get the opportunity to hunt a bighorn sheep in their lifetime, unless they are willing to pay a premium for it. And while such opportunities don't come cheap, they may soon come more often.

Should it be approved, the newly proposed Private Land Access Program for bighorn sheep is certain to expand the flagging RFW program for several reasons, not all of them bad. Yet the evidence suggests that a primary reason for the sudden overhaul offering newfound incentive to potential participants is rooted in politics, which as we've all learned by now is rooted in money.


Exhibit A, as long as we're examining evidence, is presented as the pile of money amounting to $40,000 or more for the transfer of a single private bighorn sheep hunting opportunity allotted to one ranch through the RFW partnership. The current arrangement allows one Colorado public-draw hunter an opportunity to hunt the same property for every private hunt that occurs.

The exception to that rule is found on Louis Bacon's Trinchera Blanca Ranch in southern Colorado, a model of wildlife habitat and conservation efforts that has earned accolades from the head of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and even the Secretary of the Interior. Almost 25 years ago, before the RFW program existed, Trinchera also earned a 9-to-1 split of private bighorn hunting tags over public. That agreement, coincidentally, is set to expire Dec. 31, 2015.

Trinchera is among a handful of ranches to express interest in participation in a new program, especially if the current 1-to-1 private-to-public license ratio is bolstered to the suggested ratio of 3-to-1. At the existing ratio, CPW staffers say, they'll pass.

It's widely viewed that the 170,000-acre Trinchera has done more for wildlife than any other ranch in Colorado. As a result, it garners a degree of political clout.

Increased participation in the program would probably incur a modest increase in public hunting opportunity as well, yet those whose interest is vested solely in the public resource of wildlife and the hunters who provide the vast majority of its funding backbone consider the proposed threefold increase in private ram licenses under a new, expanded program nothing short of a slap in the face.

"We cannot fathom how a proposed 2-to-1 or 3-to-1 allocation could be viewed by anyone as equitable to sportsmen in the state," former Rocky Mountain Bighorn Society president Terry Meyers told the commission in May. "CPW is proposing to trade a commodity worth $120,000 to $150,000 in exchange for providing access for a single public hunter."

The root of the concern is the continued loss of the public resource to private interests, particularly through a program that does little or nothing to benefit wild sheep. There is no requirement for participating ranches to improve bighorn habitat and, frankly, little habitat management required.

But it doesn't take much imagination to see similar programs creeping into other coveted big game hunting scenarios, including moose, the most difficult license to draw in the state. As a result, several other wildlife and sportsmen's conservation groups also are opposed to the Private Land Access Program as it is currently proposed for bighorn sheep.

"We feel like the existing proposal attempts to appease all landowners in the state who potentially qualify for the program, at a great and unacceptable loss to sportsmen in the state," said Meyers, who serves as a representative on CPW's Sportsmen's Roundtable.

The question is whether anyone is listening.

Scott Willoughby: [email protected] or twitter.com/swilloughby

 

[Big Fin]

If it is any consolation for the good folks of CO, this continual morphing of your Ranching for Wildlife program, from what it started out as in the late 1980s, to the situation it has evolved into today, serves as great example that other states use as a defense of why it is hard to trust a legislature and their manipulation of a state wildlife agency to administer this kind of program that includes a public trust resource like wildlife and do so in a manner that is balanced and reflects the state's fiduciary responsibility to manage wildlife for the citizens of the state.

Whenever this idea starts getting some steam in MT, we show the evolution of CO's RFW program and how the deal that is negotiated today will be a complete abortion twenty years from now. This spat over sheep, one of MT's most coveted tags, is going to be even greater defense for why states like MT will fight this kind of program to the ends of time.

I know that does do much good for you guys fighting the battle in CO. But, we are going to hold this up as another classic example of why these programs seldom stay in line with the original deal.

 

[Oak]

We will find out tomorrow if we have lost this particular battle in Colorado, but as Randy said, it should stand as a warning for those of you in other states to fight privatization of the public wildlife resource tooth and nail. Colorado history has shown that once landowners are served pie, they are never satisfied with the portion size.

 

[BuzzH]

Oak and Dinkshooter,

Thanks for your efforts with this issue...I hope common sense and fairness win out.

Sure wish Colorado and other states had more guys that would put effort into keeping public wildlife accessible to public hunters.

 

[Dinkshooter]

I don't really do anything other than make private snarky comments that gets Oak fired up

 

[Oak]

^^ Truth.