Explain Ranching for Wildlife

[RobG]

I need to help someone understand the issues with "Ranching for Wildlife" and why we want to keep it out of Montana. I understand some issues, but if you look at the Colorado page they spin it to look pretty good. What are the problems with the actual implementation? Is this limited to Colorado?

Ranching for Wildlife (RFW) started as a pilot program in 1986 with the intent to improve public hunting access to private land and to form a wildlife management partnership with participating landowners.​


The program ​provides Colorado residents a unique opportunity to hunt on priva​te ranch land normally closed to the public. Participating ranches provide public hunting recreation access to their land free of charge to those who draw licenses.
Public licenses on each ranch are available through the Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s (CPW) draw process. The number of licenses on each ranch is determined by negotiations between the landowner and CPW.


Through this program, hunters can play an important role in assisting CPW and landowners manage wildlife populations on private land. In addition to providing public hunting access to successful applicants, participating landowners are required to improve habitat on their ranch for both game and non-game animals. These efforts help preserve and enhance open spaces for wildlife to live and thrive and​​ keep the hunting heritage alive for you and future generations.

 

[James Riley]

I look forward to learning from this discussion. Good question.

 

[The Hedgehog]

The guys with the fat wallets get things like rut rifle elk hunts, and the minions can go into a lottery from some breadcrumbs. It's another version of the "late hunt" "shoulder season" type landowner catering, with the extra incentive of letting the wealthy easily gun down big trophies, for the better income realization to the landowner.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Maybe link up an assortment of the "who's who" in the today's hunting industry with a youtube collection of the best Ranching for Wildlife, CWMU, or NV unit wide landowner tag hunts.

 

[cedahm]

Many different experiences and it varies ranch-by-ranch. I'm personally a little conflicted about the program. My opinion:

Pro:

• Allows low-participation (less dudes) hunts on relatively unpressured ground/animals (more opportunity) that you would otherwise never have
• Often, the hunt dates are preferable and before or after general seasons in the unit
• Some ranches (3 forks, for example) treat the public tagholders EXACTLY like a paying guest, but they are the exception.
• If followed - the habitat improvements can be significant for game in the area, as the ranches need to be (iirc) >=10,000 contiguous acres, so oftentimes are crucial pieces of ground in migration corridors, sanctuaries, etc

Con:

• The biggest financial driver for the ranches is to be able to sell guided hunts on more guaranteed tags in an extended season. Rifle hunts in September, etc. Thus, the public RFW tag hunters mostly get limited seasons and limited access to the property during said season. To me, this is the biggest con. You don't just have the run of the place and your presence is - per many reports - seen as a necessary evil of the ranch getting more, better tags to sell.
  
  
• Theoretically removes tags from the public draw by alotting more tags to the ranch (I can't back this up - but logically - if there are X tags available in a unit...to give Y number of 'extra' tags to a RFW, you either need to increase tag numbers to X+Y or decrease them by X-Y. I would guess the latter is more common than not, especially since the success rate is going to be higher on those tags given their timing)
  
  
• There are smaller 'cons' like no pre-season scouting, mostly not being able to camp on the property, sometimes not being able to start hunting until well after sunrise due to check-in procedures, etc, but these are minor in the grand scheme.

Personally, I've hunted an RFW property for Turkeys (and will do so again in a heartbeat), and it was a great experience. My buddy (who has also hunted that property) and his wife have hunted cow tags on another RFW property and had a great experience. As I ascend the elk and deer point ladder - I look every year @ RFW properties I am close to being able to draw, but I'm extremely wary of what kind of experience it's going to be. Correspondingly, I'll likely never put in for Elk or Deer on an RFW. I am, however, very likely to put my 7yo son in for Cow/Doe RFW tags when he's old enough since, kind of like fishing, it's always good to be able to present a lot of opportunity to a youngster and those hunts provide that with less of the complications above.

Short version: If RFW was on the table for a vote - there's a good chance I wouldn't vote for it.

 

[Jorgy]

I will probably have a different view on RFW than a lot of other guys on this site, I like RFW and have hunted 5 different ranches over the years using the system, for myself and my sons. Greenhorns assessment isn't wrong, and I've heard Randy complain that non-residents can't apply for it here in Colorado. here are my good and bad thoughts on the program.

First, it opens up private ranches that I would never be able to hunt, ever. I am way to cheap to ever fork over $10k or more for a hunt.
I have only ever gone on doe/cow hunts on RFW properties. There are some great opportunities for hunting on these ranches for does, with the points required to draw actually lower than the public land in the same gmu's.
The seasons on the RFW are not the same as the regular seasons, so if you can only hunt weekends, or have a kid, you can get more hunting time in by using both RFW and the regular season.

There are lots of things that I don't like about RFW, the ranches get x amount of tags and they have a 90 day (or longer) season they can use there tags on for their clients. So if we are talking elk, they hunt rifle during the rut. Well, these elk don't live only on the ranch, so a guy on public is using archery, and on the other side they are using rifles. Not a big fan of the special season which just means more money for the ranch. I do wish they still had to abide by the season dates and methods.

the other thing that I never would have know about without hearing it from Randy is that in Colorado, if your ranch cuts off access to BLM, they can claim it for RFW tag purposes. So you can't fly in to that area to hunt big game. Not that it's realistic for most people. This only affects one ranch here in Colorado, and I call the BLM every January to complain when they have to approve it for 3 forks.

 

[RobG]

Maybe link up an assortment of the "who's who" in the today's hunting industry with a youtube collection of the best Ranching for Wildlife, CWMU, or NV unit wide landowner tag hunts.

I looked one time and these tags were selling for thousands of dollars. It is really a boondoggle.

I don't want to turn this into an anti-outfitter thread as that is a private property right, often exercised because landowners are tired of dealing with public hunters. However, it seems to me that this program incentivizes landowners to sell hunting privileges during the prime time and exclude the public.

 

[JLS]

As I understand it, a RFW tag is also good for the entire unit and not just the ranch itself. So, hard to draw tags can be purchased for a ransom like in Nevada.

 

[Jorgy]

As I understand it, a RFW tag is also good for the entire unit and not just the ranch itself. So, hard to draw tags can be purchased for a ransom like in Nevada.

No, a RFW tag is only good for the ranch. They are really there own little gmu

 

[Big Fin]

I have no problem with it being a resident only opportunity. I've always been fine with that and I see why CO residents would want it that way.

I have a problem with how it started, how it has morphed, and how it now operates.

How it started and how it morphed - It started with a 1:1 ratio of bulls for RFW and public hunters. If I recall correctly, over time, the legislature changed that from 1:1 to 1:2, to 1:5, to 1:10. So, now the ratio is way different than what was sold to hunters at the beginning. That is classic for all legislation related to wildlife - Pitch it as something palatable today, with one side knowing that it is pretty easy to get the ratios or percentages changed in future years. Look at the creeping percentage that has happened for Colorado landowner vouchers. Same track record.

Season dates - Personally, I dislike the premise where a RFW guy can hunt with a rifle over long range of season options, usually September, but the dude with a public tag on the other side of the fence has to hunt certain dates as described by the state and must do so with a bow.

If that is what Colorado citizens are happy with, and I'm not convinced the majority of them are happy with RFW, then that is up to them. The state is trustee of CO Wildlife for CO citizens. Any option I and other NRs get is at the pleasure of whatever CO citizens was to provide us.

As for the 3Forks to be able to enroll some really good BLM land that you could fly into for a very low cost, is complete BS. As a result of that enrollment, I could not use my deer tag that I drew in the public drawing to hunt BLM land that I could have accessed via air. This policy allows a private landowner to be awarded the hunting rights on Federal lands. Any system that allows that, is completely messed up, in my mind. And, yes, the CWMU program in UT allows the same bassackward idea. And even though 3 Forks is the only ranch currently enrolled, it certainly could involved other ranches if they so requested and the BLM so approved.

 

[BuzzH]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but even accessible BLM, FS, and State grounds are off limits within the border of a RFW area with a regular tag valid for the unit.

That, IMO, is a huge problem...combined with the privatization, commercialization, and the exclusion of the NR and public lands hunters, there is no way in hell I'd ever support a ranching for wildlife program.

They are a travesty...as a best case. A complete and total sell out of the publics wildlife resources.

 

[Jorgy]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but even accessible BLM, FS, and State grounds are off limits within the border of a RFW area with a regular tag valid for the unit.

No, the land has to be completely cut off for access, and the RFW area can petition (might not be the correct wording) to have it included into the RFW area for hunting purposes. BLM and DOW have to approve. When I call the BLM office about it, I keep getting the same answer of "it's really a DOW issue, and I always throw back, no, it's a BLM issue since you are the ones allowing it. I have always thought it will be easier to get the BLM to say no, to the DOW changing their rules.

 

[JLS]

No, a RFW tag is only good for the ranch. They are really there own little gmu

My bad. I should no better than to repeat something I heard through the grapevine.

 

[BuzzH]

No, the land has to be completely cut off for access, and the RFW area can petition (might not be the correct wording) to have it included into the RFW area for hunting purposes. BLM and DOW have to approve. When I call the BLM office about it, I keep getting the same answer of "it's really a DOW issue, and I always throw back, no, it's a BLM issue since you are the ones allowing it. I have always thought it will be easier to get the BLM to say no, to the DOW changing their rules.

So, how is land being accessible via aircraft "completely cut off for access"???

RFW is a joke.

 

[el unit]

After working for a few years at a RFW ranch in N Colorado, I too, am not a fan. So much public land off limits to the public (1000's of acres). Its great that the public can come and hunt elk on private land with a guide, free of charge. And the harvest rate on cow elk when I was there was at 100%. But, by the time the season for the "public" opens up, it's immediately after the private season ends. After 100 "private" bull elk have been harvested, 24 "private" mule deer bucks, and 15 "private" antelope bucks. By "private" I mean elk, deer, and antelope harvested by paying guests.
Then "public" season rolls around. About three weeks to shoot 200+ cow elk, 10 bull elk, and 5 mule deer bucks. The doe antelope and doe mule deer hunts take place in late August and early September. Felt more "hurry up and get tags filled" for the public hunters than the private hunters.
All that being said, there were quite a few return public hunters that went home with an animal every year. Just didn't feel like hunting to me. Plus, too many paying (private) hunters that were much more interested in bragging rights than hunting.
Not a fan of Colorado's Ranching For Wealthy program.

 

[Speeddmn]

This is essentially just like the CWMU here in UT. Here are a couple of crap shot points when I was looking into it.

Ranch/land owner has 9800 but wants to have a CWMU Elk unit, he needs 200 more acres to make it happen. He has BLM/State/Forest land that borders his and makes a definitive boundary i.e. a road. He can request that amount of land to be added and boom! He has his 10k+ acres, gets his Elk CWMU and the tags. 10% of the tags go to public lottery. So if the state biologist says his ranch/land can hold 10 bull elk tags, 2 bull moose, 10 Buck pronghorn, and 30 buck deer. Well 10% of those would be 1/0/1/3, that is the amount of tags he is required to allot back into the draw process. You apply, you draw, you pay the amount required. At that time you now must set up your hunt dates! Yes you don't get the season, Land owner/rancher/manager Ted gets to tell you have these 7 days, no more and no picking the dates. No pre scouting, no camping, no atv's, you may rent my horses, you may pay for a friend to help you... See where this is going. Granted most CWMU's here are in the higher % of success but at a cost. Now "Ted" can sell you one of the other 9 Elk tags he has, for whatever he feels is an acceptable amount, and then you might be able to hunt when and how you want.

I looked all into the UT state codes all trying to find some dumb loop holes about land access and so forth. I will never participate in a program that is run that way.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Where are the usual suspects, "You should be thankful for those opportunities you'd otherwise NOT have."

 

[Eric Albus]

and what do we have now in Montana with a 100% draw for deer/elk license...RFW would be of ZERO benefit to any landowner right now

 

[1_pointer]

and what do we have now in Montana with a 100% draw for deer/elk license...RFW would be of ZERO benefit to any landowner right now

Even in a unit with very hard to get tags? One's that only you get to market? I imagine a landowner in one of the limited elk or deer tags would like to have a steady, relatively, supply of tags for that unit to sell at the price they and the market determine.

 

[1_pointer]

This is essentially just like the CWMU here in UT. Here are a couple of crap shot points when I was looking into it.

Ranch/land owner has 9800 but wants to have a CWMU Elk unit, he needs 200 more acres to make it happen. He has BLM/State/Forest land that borders his and makes a definitive boundary i.e. a road. He can request that amount of land to be added and boom! He has his 10k+ acres, gets his Elk CWMU and the tags. 10% of the tags go to public lottery. So if the state biologist says his ranch/land can hold 10 bull elk tags, 2 bull moose, 10 Buck pronghorn, and 30 buck deer. Well 10% of those would be 1/0/1/3, that is the amount of tags he is required to allot back into the draw process. You apply, you draw, you pay the amount required. At that time you now must set up your hunt dates! Yes you don't get the season, Land owner/rancher/manager Ted gets to tell you have these 7 days, no more and no picking the dates. No pre scouting, no camping, no atv's, you may rent my horses, you may pay for a friend to help you... See where this is going. Granted most CWMU's here are in the higher % of success but at a cost. Now "Ted" can sell you one of the other 9 Elk tags he has, for whatever he feels is an acceptable amount, and then you might be able to hunt when and how you want.

I looked all into the UT state codes all trying to find some dumb loop holes about land access and so forth. I will never participate in a program that is run that way.

AFAIK, there is no need for either the BLM or the USFS to give a "blessing" for that land to be included in the CWMU. They are treated as their own hunt units, to which the UDWR is tasked with establishing. I know of a good chunk of public ground that is legally accessible (borders a state highway for a couple of miles) that is enrolled in perhaps THE CWMU...