Big Game Ranching Study Committee report

View Description

View PDF & Text

PDF
Text

Text Search...

              BIG GAME
RANCHING STUDY COMMITTEE
REPORT
DECEMBER 15,1989
Committee Membership;
Representative Jim Hartegen- Chairman
Senator James Sossaman- Vice Chairman
M. Jean Hassell, State Land Commissioner- Subcommittee Chairman
Robert K. Button, Sportsman
Dwayne Dobson, Wool Growing Industry
Jack Metzger, Range Cattle Growing Industry
Jim Webb, Range Cattle Growing Industry
Frances Werner, Game and Fish Commission
Thomas Woods, Game and Fish Commision
Backqround:
This Report represents the findings and recommendations of the
Big Game Ranching Study Committee authorized under 1989 Session
Laws, Chapter 182 of the first regular session of Arizona's 39th
Legislature. Chapter 182 is included in its entirety as Appendix
# l. The law was passed in response to concerns expressed by
representatives of Arizona's range livestock industry. The
industry concern centers on the impact of what they see as largely
uncontrolled increases in big game wildlife populations in some
areas of the state and the damage to the habitat and threat to
their livelihood as a result. The impacts on habitat used by both
wildlife and livestock, impacts on private property and range
improvements and loss of available forage for livestock use were
of primary concern.
The Big Game Ranching Study Committee members, appointed by
the Governor, the President of theusenate, the Speaker of the House
and the Game and Fish Commission held their first meeting on
September 26, 1989. Representative Hartdegen was elected Chairman
and Senator Sossman Vice Chairman. A working subcommittee was
formed, chaired by M. Jean Hassell, to take on the task of
compiling information and drafting a report. The subcommittee
received reports and comments from the Game and Fish Department,
U. S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, White Mountain
Apache Indian Tribe, the livestock industry and the public during
a series of meetings in October, November and December. The
subcommittee forwarded its recommendations to the full committee
as the basis for this report.
Description of the Issue:
Land use and natural resource management issues tend to be
very complex and often controversial. The management of our range
ecosystems to provide stable or improving wildlife and range
livestock habitat is such an issue. Stabilization or improvement
of habitat is dependent upon resolving the concerns of the various
users in order to produce a balance that will benefit the habitat.
A significant change in use by any species will alter this balance
and if adjustments are not made there will be a decline in the
condition of the habitat. Recent increases in the elk population
have been significant and have resulted in conflicts with the range
livestock industry in some areas. These conflicts have been
exacerbated by severe drought conditions.
The Big Game Ranching Study committee members, having studied
the available information and testimony provided through public
meetings, and have reached agreement in principle on the issues
involved in the following subject areas.
1) It is in the public interest to maintain both healthy wildlife
populations and a viable range livestock industry.
2) The condition of the habitat is critical for both healthy
wildlife populations and a viable livestock industry, and
improving the habitat base is beneficial to all users.
3) Many rancher sponsored improvements, particularly water
related improvements, many of which have private water rights,
have had a significant long- term beneficial impact on wildlife
populations.
4) Habitat improvements by agencies, organizations, sportsmen and
individuals to improve habitat are of substantial benefit to
wildlife and livestock, except for those water improvements
that have been fenced to exclude livestock use.
5) There has been a downward trend in livestock numbers on the
National Forest in Arizona from the 1950' s through the 1980 Is.
The Forest Service evaluation estimates that there has been
approximately a fifteen percent drop.
6) There is a need for a more formal mechanism for rancher,
resource user and manager input into the decision process for
establishing hunting seasons and permit numbers.
7) The majority of Arizona ranchers rely on some form of rest
rotation system to improve range condition. Uncontrolled
wildlife use, particularly of rested pastures, is disruptive
to the system and, if excessive, will lead to a deteriorating
or altered range condition.
8) Elk populations have increased in the past ten years and in
some areas elk and livestock grazing conflicts exist as a
result of grazing competition. Accepted resource management
practices common to range and habitat improvements done in
isolation have in some cases exacerbated the problem.
9) Where damage is occurring to private property, some form of
private land owner protection is warranted in problem areas.
10) When damage to the habitat is occurring or about to occur
action should be taken to alleviate that damage.
11) On public and State lands, the land management agencies have
the responsibility for insuring wise utilization of resources.
Where wildlife conflicts exist, the land management agencies
have the responsibility to seek resolution through existing
Arizona Game and Fish Department administrative processes and
the Commission decision making process.
12) Adjustment of wildlife populations to fit changing range
conditions is more difficult than adjustment of livestock
numbers. Once reduced, rebuilding wildlife populations is
dependent on natural reproduction. Habitat damage can occur
rapidly through overgrazing, but recovery is usually long-term.
Aqency Summaries
The U. S. Forest Service manages approximately 15.5% of the
land area within the state. Forest Service land provides
approximately 85% of the summer range and 78% of the winter range
for the elk populations. Some of these areas are used year round.
Forest plans provide the habitat management goals for Forest
Service managed lands. The Forest Service determines the
authorized and permitted numbers and types of livestock that use
the range resource but do not directly control the wildlife
population. The Forest Service may request that the Game and Fish
Commission take specific wildlife management actions. In
cooperation with the Arizona Game and Fish Department, a
comprehensive plan is developed for each forest as a bridge
document between the Forest Plan and the State Big Game Strategic
Plan to guide the control of wildlife use on the forest land. The
Forest Service may sponsor habitat improvement programs and allow
habitat improvements by interest groups.
The Bureau of Land Management manages approximately 17% of the
land area of the state. The BLM provides .7% of the elk habitat
in the state. No elk- livestock conflicts have been identified on
BLM land. Big game/ livestock conflicts on BLM land have tended to
be localized and not related to wildlife population increases that
alter habitat conditions. BLM1s planning processes are similar to
the Forest Service. The BLM does not use the Comprehensive Plan
process with Game and Fish, rather it uses Habitat Management
Plans. Like the Forest Service, the BLM controls livestock numbers,
does not control wildlife numbers, sponsors habitat improvement,
allows habitat improvements by interest groups and may make
requests that the Game and Fish Commission alter its wildlife
management actions.
The State Land Department manages approximately 13% of the
land area within the state and provides approximately 5% of the
summer range and 8% of the winter range for elk. The State Land
Department concentrates its planning effort on the Coordinated
Ranch Management Plan rather than the broader forest or resource
management plan used by the federal agencies. The Land Department
has a cooperative agreement with the Arizona Game and Fish
Department that guides the actions of each agency on wildlife
issues. The State Land Department does not provide habitat
improvements. Habitat improvement are made by state lessees acting
individually or in cooperation with other agencies or interests.
The Department controls the number of livestock using state land
and relies on the cooperation of the Game and Fish Commission to
control wildlife numbers.
Indian Reservations cover approximately 26% of the state land
area. Two of these reservations, the White Mountain and San
Carlos, provide habitat for approximately 10,000 elk. Many of
these elk spend part of the year off the reservation. The
reservations manage both livestock numbers and reservation big game
populations. The White Mountain Apache Tribe has a draft
management plan for elk. There is a need for the Tribes and the
Arizona Game and Fish Department to improve communication and
cooperation.
Private land ownership accounts for approximately 17% of the
state. Private land owners provide 10% of the summer range area
and 14% of the winter range for elk. Land owners have control of
livestock use but limited control over wildlife use. Participation
by land owners in wildlife management decision in general has been
limited to making comments on state hunt dates, permit numbers and
strategic plans, and on federal forest and resource management
plans. This situation is a strong point of contention of the
livestock interests. There are some private lands that have been
acquired by interest groups to provide wildlife preserves. This
type of acquisition has been increased in the last ten years. In
Arizona there are no provisions for compensating private land
owners for loss of forage or damage due to wildlife use.
State summaries
The following is a summary of what other states are doing.
California: No liability for depredation. Kill permits issued
for all species at discretion of local conservation
officer. Last year bill introduced into Legislature
to make State liable for wildlife damages. In
complicated negotiation legislation was withdrawn
Permits may be issued to private landowner for elk
hunt.
Colorado:
Year
Liability for certain types of damage by big game.
Direct Damage Preventive costs
Payments (~ encins, e tc. )
not available
$ 300,000
416,000
350,000
1,100,000
Payments come directly from Game and Fish funds. It is
generally believed that less than 10% of the people
experiencing damage file claims. Nobody appears happy
with the system but no one is willing to give ground.
Special hunts and kill permits used for ungulate
problems.
Montana: No damage complaints paid. Situation is such that damage
complaints are considered high priority and are
investigated within 48 hours. $ 150,000 is available
annually for preventive measures ( from license money).
Short notice depredation hunts are utilized and 200 kill
permits are issued to conservation officers or landowners
each year as a last resort.
Idaho: The 1988 Legislature made a special ( one- time)
appropriation of $ 500,000 from Game and Fish funds to pay
damage complaints. A temporary committee composed of the
Governor, Secretary of State and Attorney General with
the State Auditor acting as secretary, was empaneled to
oversee payment of damage claims. The Game and Fish
Department was asked to evaluate individual claims.
Idaho Game and Fish hired crop investigators to evaluate
claims and recommended payments which averaged 11 cents
per dollar of claim. The $ 500,000 was gone in 6 months.
Most claims were for elk, deer and antelope depredation
to agriculture. The Legislature is considering long-term
legislation concerning this issue and has hired a
professional negotiator to sit with six sportsmen and six
members of the agricultural community to develop
recommendations to submit to the Legislature. There is
$ 25,000 to $ 50,000 available annually for preventative
work.
Nebraska: No damage payments. Problems with deer and beaver.
Technical assistance provided, sometimes fencing and as
a last resort kill permits.
Kansas: No damage complaints paid. Kansas law permits an animal
causing damage to be killed by the landowner. Special
deer hunts can be held to alleviate damage. The state
pays $ 10,000- 16,00O/ year for technical assistance to
avoid kills by landowner.
Nevada: Senate Bill 130 is now law and describes funding sources
for payment of damages caused by elk or game animals not
native to Nevada. The Bill also requires the Nevada Game
and Fish Department to establish regulations pursuant to
the payment of these claims. The Department is in the
process of developing these regulations and to date no
claims have been made. Technical and material assistance
is available. In fiscal year 1989, $ 83,000 was budgeted
for FY89 and some money is available from the State
General Fund each year for this use. Emergency
depredation hunts are utilized and depredation
investigation is currently a high priority activity
within the Department.
Oregon: No payment for damage complaints. Depredation abatement
is considered a high priority activity and is resolved
generally through technical assistance, kill permits ( 282
issued last year), and/ or special depredation hunts.
Utah: Utah pays damage complaints up to $ 2,000 per complaint.
Damage complaints are limited to deer and elk damage to
fields. The annual budget is $ 500,000 from Game and Fish
funds. $ 250,000 for fencing materials, etc. and $ 100,000
actual damage payments. The Department utilizes
emergency depredation hunts and control permits to lessen
damage.
New Mexico: No damage payments. Internal policy requires 24
hour response to damage complaint. Technical
assistance and a small number of kill permits issued
to Department personnel are the principle means of
handling depredation problems.
Washington:
Wyoming :
Elk and deer damage complaints are paid up to $ 2,000
per incident. If damage is over $ 2,000 payment must
be awarded by Legislature. Money comes from Game
and Fish fund and the present budget is $ 36,000.
Damage claims for private property are paid at 100%
loss. Estimates for program costs are in excess of
$ 1,000,000 per year. Funds are obtained from
license sales. his year a single claim of $ 151,000
was paid to a tree nursery. Wyoming's program
includes seven full- time damage control wardens and
a materials budget.
Damase Claims Paid
Recommendations of the Committee
Note: Although the livestock industry agrees with these
recommendations, they believe that they are long term
solutions that do not address the actual short term
needs.
1) Conservation easement prosrams. A program of this type would
be a partnership between the cooperating landowner, the Rocky
Mountain Elk Foundation, and the Arizona Game and Fish Department.
Elk habitat projects could be constructed on the property of the
cooperating landowner. Projects would be similar to those
currently being built or developed on USFS lands.
2) Lease aqreements to secure forase or habitat. A landowner
sets aside his or her land as a big game management area. In other
states the landowner receives a tax incentive and a payment for the
forage or habitat that has been set aside for use by big game. A
tax incentive would require legislative action in Arizona.
3) Increased land acquisitions or exchanses. opportunities exist
for exchange or purchase of private lands. A willing land owner
is a key component to this solution.
4) Cost share prosrams for capital improvements. A special fund
could be established to partly pay the cost of any structural
solution to a damage complaint, such as elk proof panels or
fencing .
5) Wildlife manaqement plans. This is the concept of cooperative
wildlife management plans on private lands and where appropriate,
with the adjacent state or federal land agency. The approach would
be comprehensive in scope and consider all uses of the land. plan
would function as a contract between the cooperators, similar to
a grazing allotment management plan. Stewardship of the habitat
by the landowner would be encouraged through this approach.
6) Timely depredation hunts. Statutory authority currently
exists for the Arizona Game and Fish Commission to establish big
game depredation hunts and this has been done in the past.
However, the need for a timely response is recognized. A key
component of this recommendation package is the intention to refine
the Game and Fish Department's depredation hunt process to allow
prompt implementation of big game hunts in problem areas.
7) Arizona Game and Fish resional hunt recommendation input: The
Arizona Game and Fish Department will formalize a process whereby
county representatives from the Arizona Cattlemen's Association,
Arizona Wool Producers Association and other agricultural
organizations will be invited to provide input into the hunt
recommendation process along with representatives of the land
management agencies and the public.
The Arizona Game and Fish Department recognizes the concerns
of the state's ranching community and is making every effort to
improve communication.
8) Public Education: The agencies, the range livestock industry
and interested public should cooperate in the development of
curricula for use by the public schools to begin educating the
public on the need for a balanced approach to habitat management
and use.
9) Land Manasement Asencies: Land management agencies must
provide recommendations to the Game and Fish Commission when shifts
in wildlife populations threaten, or will threaten the habitat.
Other Recommendations Considered by the Committee
The Committee members were not able to reach agreement on the
following proposed recommendations. Position statements are
provided by the committee members to delineate the issues.
1) That recognition be given, in the law if it isn't already,
that maintenance of wildlife populations by the Game and Fish
Department in excess of resources available to support them
constitutes a taking of property from private business
interests, whether such taking occurs on private, state or
federal land.
2) That it be recognized that the requirements for reporting
wildlife depredation, and the means for mitigation and
compensation therefor, are not adequately covered by Title 17,
ARS .
3 ) That the Game and Fish Department be held accountable, in the
law, for any adverse effects on the livestock industry,
whether on public or private land, caused by the state's
wildlife populations.
4 ) That it be recognized that the livestock industry in Arizona,
which has developed and in large part manages the resources
which influence wildlife populations use, operates on a
combination of private, state and federal land. Since
individual ranch units are managed individually, establishment
and maintenance of wildlife populations, hunt numbers, and
hunt seasons must be coordinated with ranchers by the Game and
Fish Department on an individual ranch basis.
5) That, due to an extreme and uncontrolled increase in elk
populations in excess of both the Game and Fish Department's
long range plans and the natural resources to sustain them,
elk populations be immediately reduced to levels reported by
the Game and Fish Department in 1980 or less, depending on
resource conditions.
6 ) A Wildlife Depredation Board be established under the Arizona
Department of Agriculture and be empowered to process, hear,
and adjudicate depredation claims. The Board would be
constituted of five members; a representative of the Livestock
Board, a rancher, a sportsman, a Game and Fish Commission
member and a public member.
7) That, as a management tool and means of mitigating problems
and coordination with ranchers in resource decisions, a system
of revenue sharing be created by law in which the Game and
Fish Department would set aside a percentage of game permits,
with the revenue therefrom to be divided between the Game and
Fish Department and cooperating ranchers. Funds derived by
the Game and Fish Department from the system should be used
to fund habitat improvement and to mitigate actual or
potential depredation. The rancher portion of revenues
collected from the permits set aside for the program should
be allocated on a proportionate basis of total ranch acreage
to total acreage within a game unit. All funds should be
collected and distributed by the Game and Fish Department, and
all game species should be subject to the shared revenue
permit program.
APPENDIX 1
39TH LEGISLATURE
BIG GAME RANCHING STUDY
CHAPTER 182
HOUSE BILL 2158
AN ACT
RELATING TO GAME AND FISH; PROVIDING FOR A BIG GAME RANCHING STUDY
COMMITTEE; PRESCRIBING MEMBERS, COMPENSATION AND DUTIES;
PRESCRIBING A REPORT, AND PROVIDING FOR A DELAYED REPEAL.
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
Section 1. Biq qame ranchinq study committee
A. A big game ranching study committee is established
consisting of the following members:
1. One member of the senate appointed by the president of
the senate.
2. One member of the house of representatives appointed by
the speaker of the house of representatives.
3. Two members who represent the range cattle growing
industry appointed by the governor.
4. Two members of the Arizona game and fish commission
appointed by the chairman of the commission.
5. One member who represents the wool growing industry
appointed by the governor.
6. One member who represents an organized sportsmen's group
appointed by the governor.
?. The state land commissioner or designated state land
department representative chosen by the state land commissioner.
8. The committee shall select a chairman and vice- chairman
from among its members. Members of the committee are not eleigible
for compensation for their service but members appointed pursuant
to subsection A, paragraphs 1, 2 and 4 are elegible for
reimbursement of expenses by their respective appointive bodies.
Members of the committee appointed pursuant to subsection A,
paragraphs 3 and 5 are eligible for reimbursement of expenses from
the Arizona livestock board. The member appointed pursuant to
subsection A , paragraph 6, is eligible for reimbursement of
expenses from the Arizona game and fish commission.
C. The committee shall study the feasibility of establishing
a program for ranchers and landowners to recover costs associated
with big game on their property.
D. On or before December 15, 1989, the committee shall
submit a final report of its findings and recommendations to the
governor, the president of the senate, the speaker of the house of
representatives, the Arizona game and fish commission and the
Arizona livestock board.
Sec. 2 Repeal
This act is repealed from and after December 15, 1989.
List of Exhibits
Arizona House Bill 2158
Minutes of Committee and Subcommittee Meetings
Statement by Forest Service
Handout by BLM
Fort Apache Elk Management Plan
Handouts by U. S. Forest Service 10/ 18/ 89
Report to the Big Game Ranching Study Committee, Arizona Game
and Fish Department
Arizona Game and Fish Big Game Population Estimates
Handout by U. S. Forest Service 11/ 1/ 89
Game and Fish Department statement for the record 9/ 26/ 89
Arizona Big Game Strategic Plans, Arizona Game and Fish
Arizona Wildlife and Fisheries Comprehensive Plan - Kaibab
National Forest
" Fort Apache Elk," article, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
Depredation compensation states summary and supplement,
Arizona Game and Fish.
Livestock Industry presentation and statements
Statement, Lee Kohlhase, Arizona Wildlife Foundation
Statement, Jack Simon, Arizona Wildlife Foundation
Statement, Robert Bayne, Tucson Rod and Gun Club
Statement, Fred Baker,
Position Statement on Wildlife Depredation, Arizona Game and
Fish Department
Livestock Industry comments specific to Arizona Game and Fish
Department Position Paper and comments to the Committee
Arizona Livestock Background and Policy Statement
Letter from the Forest Service 12/ 4/ 89
Letter from Janet R. Huebner, R. N.
Arizona Farm Bureau Federation comments 12/ 7/ 89
Information from Jack Simon, Arizona Wildlife Federation
Letter from Forest Service, 12/ 12/ 89, to M. J. Hassell
Letter from Forest Service, 12/ 12/ 89, to Pamela Neal
Statement from Robert K. Button, 12/ 13/ 89
Arizona Game and Fish Response to Livestock Industry
statements, 12/ 13/ 89 and other comments
Public Lands Council fact sheet, 4/ 17/ 89
STATEKENT BY M. J. HASSELL
BEFORE THE
BIG GAVE RANCHING STUDY COMMITTE~
Friday, December 15. 1989
MR. CHAIRMAN:
- THE 39TH STATE LEGISLATURE PASSED HOUSE BILL 2158 IN
RESPONSE TO CONCERNS OF LIVESTOCK INTERESTS IN ARIZONA. THE
LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY SEES INCREASING BIG GAME NUMBERS AS AN
IMMEDIATE THREAT TO THEIR LIVELIHOOD AND WAY OF LIFE. THEY
FELT THERE WAS NO AVENUE OPEN TO THEM TO RESOLVE THIS THREAT
OTHER THAN ASKING FOR ASSISTANCE FROM THEIR ELECTED
REPRESENTATIVES. THE LAW, AS PASSED, SET UP A COMMITTEE
CONSISTING OF 2 MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE, 3 MEMBERS
REPRESENTING WILDLIFE INTERESTS, 3 MEMBERS WHO WOULD
REPRESENT LIVESTOCK INTERESTS AND, FINALLY, THE STATE LAND
COMMISSIONER.
- THE PURPOSE OF THE COMMITTEE IS SIMPLE IN CONCEPT-- TO STUDY
THE FEASIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A PROGRAM FOR RANCHERS AND
LANDOWNERS TO RECOVER COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH BIG GAVE ON
THEIR PROPERTY.
- WHILE SIMPLE IN CONCEPT, THE TASK GIVEN THIS SUBCOMMITTEE IS
A DIFFICULT ONE CHARGED WITH EMOTION AND WITH MANY
INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS TAKING AN ACTIVE INTEREST IN THE
OUTCOME.
- ON THE ONE HAND, THOSE WHO STRONGLY FAVOR WILDLIFE INTERESTS
ARE ADAMANT THAT WILDLIFE BE FAVORED IN ALL CONFLICT
SITUATIONS.
- ON THE OTHER HAND, LIVESTOCK INTERESTS SEE DAMAGE OCCURRING
TO THE FORAGE RESOURCE AND INVESTMENTS MADE TO ENHANCE OR TO
MAKE BETTER USE OF THE FORAGE RESOURCE BEING WIPED OUT BY
OVERGRAZING BY THE RAPIDLY INCREASING NUMBER OF ELK WHO USE
THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LANDS.
- IN SPITE OF THE POLARIZED POSITIONS, THIS SUBCOMMITTEE
WORKED HARD TO FIND AREAS OF AGREEMENT IN THE ISSUES AND
SOLUTIONS TO THE CONFLICTS WE NOW FACE.
- THE PRINCIPLE AREAS OF AGREEMENT ARE:
- BOTH WILDLIFE AND LIVESTOCK ARE IMPORTANT TO OUR STATE.
THAT HEALTHY HABITAT IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF ALL
CONCERNED.
- THAT WHERE DAMAGE TO THE HABITAT IS HAPPENING OR IS
ABOUT TO HAPPEN ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN TO STOP OR
PREVENT DAMAGE.
- THERE WERE OTHER AREAS OF AGREEMENT THAT ARE DOCUMENTED IN
OUR REPORT.
- WHILE THERE WAS CONSIDERABLE AGREEMENT ON ISSUES, THERE WAS
ONLY LIMITED AGREEMENT ON SOLUTIONS.
- THERE ARE SEVERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FROM GAME AND FISH IN OUR
REPORT THAT WERE AGREED UPON AND THAT I BELIEVE WILL BE
USEFUL IF IMPLEMENTED IN HELPING TO BETTER DEAL WITH
LIVESTOCK/ WILDLIFE CONFLICTS.
- HOWEVER, OUR REPORT ALSO CONTAINS RECOMMENDATIONS GIVEN BY
THE LIVESTOCK INTERESTS THAT THIS COMMITTEE COULD NOT
DEVELOP A CONSENSUS ON.
- THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY REFLECT
THE SENSE OF URGENCY AND FRUSTRATION THEY FEEL IN THE
CURRENT SITUATION.
- WHILE THE LIVESTOCK INTERESTS HAVE AGREED WITH SEVERAL
RECOMMENDATIONS THEY BELIEVE THESE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE
LONGER TERM SOLUTIONS OR EVEN MOTHERHOOD ANSWERS THAT ARE
NOT RESPONSIVE TO WHAT THEY PERCEIVE TO BE AN IMMEDIATE
THREAT.
- THEY FEEL VERY STRONGLY THAT WE ARE I N A C R I S I S SITUATION
AND THAT ACTION MUST BE TAKEN NOW TO REDUCE WILDLIFE
POPULATIONS WHERE THEY ARE EXCESSIVE. I N ADDITION, THEY
FEEL THAT POPULATIONS, ONCE REDUCED, MUST BE HELD TO
ACCEPTABLE LEVELS.
- ON THE OTHER HAND, GAME AND FISH MANAGEMENT FEEL THEY HAVE
BEEN AND ARE NOW, RESPONSIVE TO COMPLAINTS OF DAMAGE CAUSED
BY WILDLIFE. THEY HAVE OFFERED RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WOULD
ENHANCE THE WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT DECISION PROCESS AND MAKE
POSSIBLE COOPERATIVE PROJECTS FOR HABITAT IMPROVEMENT AND
PROTECTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY.
- MR. CHAIRMAN, BEFORE HANDING OVER THE REPORT I WOULD LIKE TO
STATE SOME PERSONAL BELIEFS AND OPINIONS. -
?
- ELK POPULATIONS ARE GOVERNED ALMOST ENTIRELY BY WHAT THE
UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, THE WHITE MOUNTAIN APACHE
INDIAN RESERVATION AND THE ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT
DO WITH THE HABITAT AND THE HUNT. ACTION BY THE BUREAU OF
LAND MANAGEMENT, THE STATE LAND DEPARTMENT OR ANY PRIVATE
LANDOWNER WILL NOT EFFECT POPULATION LEVELS TO ANY
SIGNIFICANT EXTENT.
- LIVESTOCK NUMBERS, WHILE DISPUTED, HAVE LARGELY ' BEEN STATIC
OR DOWNWARD ON THE NATIONAL FORESTS.
- I N CONTRAST, ELK NUMBERS HAVE PROBABLY TRIPLED I N THE LAST
10 YEARS AND I T APPEARS THAT GAME POPULATIONS WILL CONTINUE
TO INCREASE.
- PERHAPS THE MAJOR REASON FOR THIS INCREASE IS THE FACT THAT
THE PUBLIC DECISION- MAKING PROCESSES BY GOVERNMENTAL BODIES
AND AGENCIES FAVORS WILDLIFE.
- WHAT THE FOREST SERVICE DOES ABOUT WILDLIFE HABITAT IS
DETERMINED TO GREAT EXTENT BY PUBLIC INPUT INTO FOREST PLANS
AND THIS INPUT HAS TENDED TO FAVOR WILDLIFE.
- SEASON AND HARVEST LEVELS FOR WILDLIFE ARE THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE STATE GAME AND FISH AND ARE HEAVILY
INFLUENCED BY PUBLIC INPUT AND ARE THE PRODUCT OF A PROCESS
THAT TOTALLY FAVORS WILDLIFE INTERESTS.
- SINCE PUBLIC PROCESSES OF PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT PI.,, NNING
AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT HAVE FAVORED WILDLIFE, THE RESULT IS
LARGE AND INCREASING NUMBERS OF ELK. AS A RESULT THE
LIVESTOCK INTERESTS ON SOME FEDERAL PUBLIC LANDS ARE
THREATENED.
- IT IS ALSO APPARENT TO ME THAT IN SOME PLACES EXCESSIVE
OVERUSE AND UNCONTROLLED USE IS BEGINNING TO CAUSE DAMAGE TO
THE BASIC RESOURCE, THAT IS THE SOIL AND THE VEGETATION
WHICH GROWS UPON IT. IF LAST YEAR'S DROUTH CONTINUES, THE
DAMAGE WILL TAKE PLACE AT AN INCREASING RATE.
- A 300 PERCENT INCREASE IN ELK NUMBERS OVER THE LAST 10 YEARS
1s NOT ONLY CONFLICTING WITH LIVESTOCK, IT HAS AN IMPACT ON
ALL ANIMAL SPECIES DEPENDENT ON THE VEGETATIVE RESOURCE. IN
OTHER WORDS, WILDLIFE WILL ALSO BE A LOSER IF DAMAGE
CONTINUES TO OCCUR. SURELY, WE HAVE NOT FORGOTTEN THE
LESSON OF THE NORTH KAIBAB DEER HERD DISASTER OF THE 19201S,
OR HAVE WE? ON THE KAIBAB DEER NUMBERS INCREASED FAR BEYOND
THE FORAGE CAPACITY AND EACH WINTER THOUSANDS OF DEER DIED
OF STARVATION. IN A MAJOR CONFRONTATION BETWEEN THE STATE
AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THE FEDS HIRED HUNTERS TO KILL
THOUSANDS OF DEER IN AN ATTEMPT TO PROTECT THE HABITAT. THE
LAST ' MAJOR DIE- OFF OCCURRED IN THE 1950' s AND THE SCARS ON
THE HABITAT, PARTICULARLY THE WINTER RANGES, ARE CLEARLY
VISIBLE YET TODAY.
- IF EVENTS CONTINUE ON THEIR PRESENT COURSE, I. E. INCREASING
ELK NUMBERS, STATIC LIVESTOCK NUMBERS, DROUTH, AN
ECOLOGICAL DISASTER IS IN THE MAKING. IT WILL NOT ONLY BE
AN ECOLOGICAL DISASTER, IT WILL ALSO BE AN ECONOMIC
DISASTER FOR THE RANCHER.
- 6-
- IF THIS DISASTER IS TO BE AVOIDED, THEN THOSE WHO ARE IN A
POSITION TO TAKE MEANINGFUL ACTION MUST DO SO NOW. THIS
MEANS THE FOREST SERVICE, THE GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT AND
THE WHITE MOUNTAIN APACHES.
- ELK POPULATIONS ON THE PLATEAU MUST BE AT A LEVEL COMPATIBLE
WITH HABITAT CONDITIONS ON KEY AREAS AND THEY MUST BE HELD
TO THESE LEVELS. LIVESTOCK NUMBERS ON THESE AREAS ARE
CONTROLLED BY FEDERAL PUBLIC LAND MANAGERS. ELK POPULATIONS
CAN ONLY BE CONTROLLED BY THE STATE.
- I AM NOT OPTIMISTIC THE LEGISLATURE CAN SOLVE THIS PROBLEM.
FIRST OF ALL, THE NATIONAL FORESTS ARE UNDER FEDERAL
MANAGEMENT AND THEREFORE, NOT SUBJECT TO MANAGEMENT
DIRECTION FROM THE STATE LEGISLATURE. THIS LEAVES THE
POSSIBILITY OF DOING SOMETHING LEGISLATIVELY ABOUT WILDLIFE
NUMBERS. IN STATES WHERE SUCH LAWS HAVE BEEN PASSED
ARGUMENTS CONTINUE AND ARE A SOURCE OF POLITICAL IRRITATION.
WORST OF ALL, HABITAT DEPREDATION CONTINUES; WILDLIFE
MANAGEMENT IS NO BETTER FOR IT ALL. NONE OF THE THINGS THE
ARIZONA LEGISLATURE COULD DO WOULD BE POPULAR AND NONE THAT
I CAN SEE WOULD SOLVE THE PROBLEM.
THERE ARE TWO INTERESTS INVOLVED HERE THAT COULD AND SHOULD TAKE
STEPS TO RESOLVE CONFLICTS.
- SPORTSMEN DO NOT GIVE CREDIT DUE, IN MY OPINION, TO THE
EFFORT OF THE LIVESTOCK OPERATOR.
- THEY POINT OUT THAT ARIZONA IS DIFFERENT THAN OTHER
STATES BECAUSE IT HAS SO LITTLE PRIVATE LAND.
- IT IS DIFFERENT ALRIGHT, BUT I BELIEVE THE BIG
DIFFERENCE IS OVERLOOKED BY WILDLIFE INTERESTS. THE
KEY DIFFERENCE IS THE IMPORTANCE OF WATER -- MUCH OF
WHICH WOULD NOT EXIST FOR USE BY WILDLIFE AND
LIVESTOCK IF THE RANCHER HAD NOT DEVELOPED THE WELLS
AND WATER CATCHMENTS. FURTHERMORE, MANY OF THE
EXISTING WATERS, EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY BE ON PUBLIC
LAND, ARE PRIVATE WATER RIGHTS.
- RESPONSIBLE LIVESTOCK OPERATORS ARE DAY- TO- DAY STEWARDS
OF THE LAND, BE IT PUBLIC OR PRIVATE, AND ALL INTERESTS
BENEFIT FROM THEIR DAILY STEWARDSHIP.
- VANDALISM TO IMPROVEMENTS AND BAD MANNERS BY A FEW
HUNTERS INCREASE TENSIONS.
LIVESTOCK OPERATORS, ON THE OTHER HAND, TOO OFTEN CONFUSE
THEIR STEWARDSHIP WITH OWNERSHIP OF PUBLIC LAND.
NOTHING IS MORE INFURIATING TO A HUNTER THAN BEING
DRIVEN AWAY FROM PUBLIC LAND BY A RANCHER OR HAVING
ACCESS BLOCKED BECAUSE OF A SMALL PIECE OF PRIVATE
LAND.
THIS HAPPENS ALL TOO OFTEN AND EVENTUALLY SPORTSMEN
WILL SECURE THEIR RIGHTS BY GOING AROUND OR OVER THIS
SELFISH STANCE.
THE LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY IS NOTORIOUS FOR RATIONALIZING
THE MISCONDUCT OF A FEW OF THEIR MEMBERS. THIS CANNOT
HELP BUT AGGRAVATE THE SITUATION.
IT IS TIME FOR THESE GROUPS TO SEE THEIR COMMON INTERESTS AND TO
WORK TOGETHER THROUGH LAND MANAGEMENT PLANS AND HUNTING RULES TO
STABILIZE WILDLIFE AND LIVESTOCK NUMBERS ON NATIONAL FOREST AND
INDIAN LANDS. IF THEY DO NOT, THEY WILL EACH LOSE AND PERHAPS
THE BIGGEST LOSER OF ALL WILL BE WILDLIFE.
- YOUR COMMITTEE HAS BEEN A FORUM FOR AIRING CONCERNS,
RECEIVING TESTIMONY, REVIEWING PRACTICES IN OTHER WESTERN
STATES, DOCUMENTING ISSUES, AND HELPING BOTH SIDES TO BETTER
UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEMS
- MR. CHAIRMAN, I AM SORRY THAT YOUR SUBCOMMITTEE COULD NOT
- 9-
FIND EASY ANSWERS TO THE PROBLEM BEFORE IT, BUT THERE ARE
NONE. THIS IS ONE OF THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE CITIZENS MUST
FIND THE COMMON GROUND AND WORK TOGETHER. THE WORK DONE BY
THIS COMMITTEE CAN AND SHOULD SERVE AS A STARTING POINT FOR
FUTURE EFFORTS TO SOLVE CONFLICTS THAT ARE WITH US TODAY.
- AND FINALLY, MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAND YOU THE REPORT YOUR
SUBCOMMITTEE HAS DEVELOPED AFTER MANY HOURS OF HEARINGS AND
DISCUSSION.
THIS REPORT WAS ACCEPTED UNANIMOUSLY BY THE
SUBCOMMITTEE AT THEIR MEETING ON WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER
13, 1989.
THE REPORT WAS FULLY ACCEPTED SUBJECT ONLY TO
CORRECTION OF ERRORS AND OMISSIONS WITH FULL AGREEMENT
FROM ALL MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE THAT THIS
CONSTITUTED OUR FINAL REPORT.
WORKING ON THIS REPORT HAS BEEN EDUCATIONAL FOR ME AND
I BELIEVE FOR ALL THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
I RECOMMEND YOU ACCEPT IT AS WRITTEN.

Description

Rating
TITLE	Big Game Ranching Study Committee report
CREATOR	Arizona Legislature. Big Game Ranching Study Committee.
SUBJECT	Legislative Study Committee--Arizona; Game and game birds--Arizona; Livestock; Range management--Arizona;
Browse Topic	Government and politics Land and resources
DESCRIPTION	23 pages (PDF version). File size: 1089.563 KB.
Language	English
Publisher	Arizona. Legislature. Big Game Ranching Study Committee.
TYPE	Text
Material Collection	State Documents House Received Reports Legislative Study Committee Reports
Acquisition Note	Publication or link to publication sent to reports@lib.az.us
RIGHTS MANAGEMENT	Copyright to this resource is held by the creating agency and is provided here for educational purposes only. It may not be downloaded, reproduced or distributed in any format without written permission of the creating agency. Any attempt to circumvent the access controls placed on this file is a violation of United States and international copyright laws, and is subject to criminal prosecution.
DATE ORIGINAL	1989-12-15
Time Period	1980s (1980-1989)
ORIGINAL FORMAT	Paper
Source Identifier	LG 1.2:R 15
Location	248056228
DIGITAL IDENTIFIER	RMDHOUSE_BGRSC_DEC 15_1989.pdf
DIGITAL FORMAT	PDF (Portable Document Format)
DIGITIZATION SPECIFICATIONS	Digitized into PDF form through scanning at the Records Management Division, Arizona State Library.
REPOSITORY	Arizona State Library. Archives and Public Records--Law and Research Library.
File Size	1089.563 KB
Full Text	BIG GAME RANCHING STUDY COMMITTEE REPORT DECEMBER 15,1989 Committee Membership; Representative Jim Hartegen- Chairman Senator James Sossaman- Vice Chairman M. Jean Hassell, State Land Commissioner- Subcommittee Chairman Robert K. Button, Sportsman Dwayne Dobson, Wool Growing Industry Jack Metzger, Range Cattle Growing Industry Jim Webb, Range Cattle Growing Industry Frances Werner, Game and Fish Commission Thomas Woods, Game and Fish Commision Backqround: This Report represents the findings and recommendations of the Big Game Ranching Study Committee authorized under 1989 Session Laws, Chapter 182 of the first regular session of Arizona's 39th Legislature. Chapter 182 is included in its entirety as Appendix # l. The law was passed in response to concerns expressed by representatives of Arizona's range livestock industry. The industry concern centers on the impact of what they see as largely uncontrolled increases in big game wildlife populations in some areas of the state and the damage to the habitat and threat to their livelihood as a result. The impacts on habitat used by both wildlife and livestock, impacts on private property and range improvements and loss of available forage for livestock use were of primary concern. The Big Game Ranching Study Committee members, appointed by the Governor, the President of theusenate, the Speaker of the House and the Game and Fish Commission held their first meeting on September 26, 1989. Representative Hartdegen was elected Chairman and Senator Sossman Vice Chairman. A working subcommittee was formed, chaired by M. Jean Hassell, to take on the task of compiling information and drafting a report. The subcommittee received reports and comments from the Game and Fish Department, U. S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, White Mountain Apache Indian Tribe, the livestock industry and the public during a series of meetings in October, November and December. The subcommittee forwarded its recommendations to the full committee as the basis for this report. Description of the Issue: Land use and natural resource management issues tend to be very complex and often controversial. The management of our range ecosystems to provide stable or improving wildlife and range livestock habitat is such an issue. Stabilization or improvement of habitat is dependent upon resolving the concerns of the various users in order to produce a balance that will benefit the habitat. A significant change in use by any species will alter this balance and if adjustments are not made there will be a decline in the condition of the habitat. Recent increases in the elk population have been significant and have resulted in conflicts with the range livestock industry in some areas. These conflicts have been exacerbated by severe drought conditions. The Big Game Ranching Study committee members, having studied the available information and testimony provided through public meetings, and have reached agreement in principle on the issues involved in the following subject areas. 1) It is in the public interest to maintain both healthy wildlife populations and a viable range livestock industry. 2) The condition of the habitat is critical for both healthy wildlife populations and a viable livestock industry, and improving the habitat base is beneficial to all users. 3) Many rancher sponsored improvements, particularly water related improvements, many of which have private water rights, have had a significant long- term beneficial impact on wildlife populations. 4) Habitat improvements by agencies, organizations, sportsmen and individuals to improve habitat are of substantial benefit to wildlife and livestock, except for those water improvements that have been fenced to exclude livestock use. 5) There has been a downward trend in livestock numbers on the National Forest in Arizona from the 1950' s through the 1980 Is. The Forest Service evaluation estimates that there has been approximately a fifteen percent drop. 6) There is a need for a more formal mechanism for rancher, resource user and manager input into the decision process for establishing hunting seasons and permit numbers. 7) The majority of Arizona ranchers rely on some form of rest rotation system to improve range condition. Uncontrolled wildlife use, particularly of rested pastures, is disruptive to the system and, if excessive, will lead to a deteriorating or altered range condition. 8) Elk populations have increased in the past ten years and in some areas elk and livestock grazing conflicts exist as a result of grazing competition. Accepted resource management practices common to range and habitat improvements done in isolation have in some cases exacerbated the problem. 9) Where damage is occurring to private property, some form of private land owner protection is warranted in problem areas. 10) When damage to the habitat is occurring or about to occur action should be taken to alleviate that damage. 11) On public and State lands, the land management agencies have the responsibility for insuring wise utilization of resources. Where wildlife conflicts exist, the land management agencies have the responsibility to seek resolution through existing Arizona Game and Fish Department administrative processes and the Commission decision making process. 12) Adjustment of wildlife populations to fit changing range conditions is more difficult than adjustment of livestock numbers. Once reduced, rebuilding wildlife populations is dependent on natural reproduction. Habitat damage can occur rapidly through overgrazing, but recovery is usually long-term. Aqency Summaries The U. S. Forest Service manages approximately 15.5% of the land area within the state. Forest Service land provides approximately 85% of the summer range and 78% of the winter range for the elk populations. Some of these areas are used year round. Forest plans provide the habitat management goals for Forest Service managed lands. The Forest Service determines the authorized and permitted numbers and types of livestock that use the range resource but do not directly control the wildlife population. The Forest Service may request that the Game and Fish Commission take specific wildlife management actions. In cooperation with the Arizona Game and Fish Department, a comprehensive plan is developed for each forest as a bridge document between the Forest Plan and the State Big Game Strategic Plan to guide the control of wildlife use on the forest land. The Forest Service may sponsor habitat improvement programs and allow habitat improvements by interest groups. The Bureau of Land Management manages approximately 17% of the land area of the state. The BLM provides .7% of the elk habitat in the state. No elk- livestock conflicts have been identified on BLM land. Big game/ livestock conflicts on BLM land have tended to be localized and not related to wildlife population increases that alter habitat conditions. BLM1s planning processes are similar to the Forest Service. The BLM does not use the Comprehensive Plan process with Game and Fish, rather it uses Habitat Management Plans. Like the Forest Service, the BLM controls livestock numbers, does not control wildlife numbers, sponsors habitat improvement, allows habitat improvements by interest groups and may make requests that the Game and Fish Commission alter its wildlife management actions. The State Land Department manages approximately 13% of the land area within the state and provides approximately 5% of the summer range and 8% of the winter range for elk. The State Land Department concentrates its planning effort on the Coordinated Ranch Management Plan rather than the broader forest or resource management plan used by the federal agencies. The Land Department has a cooperative agreement with the Arizona Game and Fish Department that guides the actions of each agency on wildlife issues. The State Land Department does not provide habitat improvements. Habitat improvement are made by state lessees acting individually or in cooperation with other agencies or interests. The Department controls the number of livestock using state land and relies on the cooperation of the Game and Fish Commission to control wildlife numbers. Indian Reservations cover approximately 26% of the state land area. Two of these reservations, the White Mountain and San Carlos, provide habitat for approximately 10,000 elk. Many of these elk spend part of the year off the reservation. The reservations manage both livestock numbers and reservation big game populations. The White Mountain Apache Tribe has a draft management plan for elk. There is a need for the Tribes and the Arizona Game and Fish Department to improve communication and cooperation. Private land ownership accounts for approximately 17% of the state. Private land owners provide 10% of the summer range area and 14% of the winter range for elk. Land owners have control of livestock use but limited control over wildlife use. Participation by land owners in wildlife management decision in general has been limited to making comments on state hunt dates, permit numbers and strategic plans, and on federal forest and resource management plans. This situation is a strong point of contention of the livestock interests. There are some private lands that have been acquired by interest groups to provide wildlife preserves. This type of acquisition has been increased in the last ten years. In Arizona there are no provisions for compensating private land owners for loss of forage or damage due to wildlife use. State summaries The following is a summary of what other states are doing. California: No liability for depredation. Kill permits issued for all species at discretion of local conservation officer. Last year bill introduced into Legislature to make State liable for wildlife damages. In complicated negotiation legislation was withdrawn Permits may be issued to private landowner for elk hunt. Colorado: Year Liability for certain types of damage by big game. Direct Damage Preventive costs Payments (~ encins, e tc. ) not available $ 300,000 416,000 350,000 1,100,000 Payments come directly from Game and Fish funds. It is generally believed that less than 10% of the people experiencing damage file claims. Nobody appears happy with the system but no one is willing to give ground. Special hunts and kill permits used for ungulate problems. Montana: No damage complaints paid. Situation is such that damage complaints are considered high priority and are investigated within 48 hours. $ 150,000 is available annually for preventive measures ( from license money). Short notice depredation hunts are utilized and 200 kill permits are issued to conservation officers or landowners each year as a last resort. Idaho: The 1988 Legislature made a special ( one- time) appropriation of $ 500,000 from Game and Fish funds to pay damage complaints. A temporary committee composed of the Governor, Secretary of State and Attorney General with the State Auditor acting as secretary, was empaneled to oversee payment of damage claims. The Game and Fish Department was asked to evaluate individual claims. Idaho Game and Fish hired crop investigators to evaluate claims and recommended payments which averaged 11 cents per dollar of claim. The $ 500,000 was gone in 6 months. Most claims were for elk, deer and antelope depredation to agriculture. The Legislature is considering long-term legislation concerning this issue and has hired a professional negotiator to sit with six sportsmen and six members of the agricultural community to develop recommendations to submit to the Legislature. There is $ 25,000 to $ 50,000 available annually for preventative work. Nebraska: No damage payments. Problems with deer and beaver. Technical assistance provided, sometimes fencing and as a last resort kill permits. Kansas: No damage complaints paid. Kansas law permits an animal causing damage to be killed by the landowner. Special deer hunts can be held to alleviate damage. The state pays $ 10,000- 16,00O/ year for technical assistance to avoid kills by landowner. Nevada: Senate Bill 130 is now law and describes funding sources for payment of damages caused by elk or game animals not native to Nevada. The Bill also requires the Nevada Game and Fish Department to establish regulations pursuant to the payment of these claims. The Department is in the process of developing these regulations and to date no claims have been made. Technical and material assistance is available. In fiscal year 1989, $ 83,000 was budgeted for FY89 and some money is available from the State General Fund each year for this use. Emergency depredation hunts are utilized and depredation investigation is currently a high priority activity within the Department. Oregon: No payment for damage complaints. Depredation abatement is considered a high priority activity and is resolved generally through technical assistance, kill permits ( 282 issued last year), and/ or special depredation hunts. Utah: Utah pays damage complaints up to $ 2,000 per complaint. Damage complaints are limited to deer and elk damage to fields. The annual budget is $ 500,000 from Game and Fish funds. $ 250,000 for fencing materials, etc. and $ 100,000 actual damage payments. The Department utilizes emergency depredation hunts and control permits to lessen damage. New Mexico: No damage payments. Internal policy requires 24 hour response to damage complaint. Technical assistance and a small number of kill permits issued to Department personnel are the principle means of handling depredation problems. Washington: Wyoming : Elk and deer damage complaints are paid up to $ 2,000 per incident. If damage is over $ 2,000 payment must be awarded by Legislature. Money comes from Game and Fish fund and the present budget is $ 36,000. Damage claims for private property are paid at 100% loss. Estimates for program costs are in excess of $ 1,000,000 per year. Funds are obtained from license sales. his year a single claim of $ 151,000 was paid to a tree nursery. Wyoming's program includes seven full- time damage control wardens and a materials budget. Damase Claims Paid Recommendations of the Committee Note: Although the livestock industry agrees with these recommendations, they believe that they are long term solutions that do not address the actual short term needs. 1) Conservation easement prosrams. A program of this type would be a partnership between the cooperating landowner, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, and the Arizona Game and Fish Department. Elk habitat projects could be constructed on the property of the cooperating landowner. Projects would be similar to those currently being built or developed on USFS lands. 2) Lease aqreements to secure forase or habitat. A landowner sets aside his or her land as a big game management area. In other states the landowner receives a tax incentive and a payment for the forage or habitat that has been set aside for use by big game. A tax incentive would require legislative action in Arizona. 3) Increased land acquisitions or exchanses. opportunities exist for exchange or purchase of private lands. A willing land owner is a key component to this solution. 4) Cost share prosrams for capital improvements. A special fund could be established to partly pay the cost of any structural solution to a damage complaint, such as elk proof panels or fencing . 5) Wildlife manaqement plans. This is the concept of cooperative wildlife management plans on private lands and where appropriate, with the adjacent state or federal land agency. The approach would be comprehensive in scope and consider all uses of the land. plan would function as a contract between the cooperators, similar to a grazing allotment management plan. Stewardship of the habitat by the landowner would be encouraged through this approach. 6) Timely depredation hunts. Statutory authority currently exists for the Arizona Game and Fish Commission to establish big game depredation hunts and this has been done in the past. However, the need for a timely response is recognized. A key component of this recommendation package is the intention to refine the Game and Fish Department's depredation hunt process to allow prompt implementation of big game hunts in problem areas. 7) Arizona Game and Fish resional hunt recommendation input: The Arizona Game and Fish Department will formalize a process whereby county representatives from the Arizona Cattlemen's Association, Arizona Wool Producers Association and other agricultural organizations will be invited to provide input into the hunt recommendation process along with representatives of the land management agencies and the public. The Arizona Game and Fish Department recognizes the concerns of the state's ranching community and is making every effort to improve communication. 8) Public Education: The agencies, the range livestock industry and interested public should cooperate in the development of curricula for use by the public schools to begin educating the public on the need for a balanced approach to habitat management and use. 9) Land Manasement Asencies: Land management agencies must provide recommendations to the Game and Fish Commission when shifts in wildlife populations threaten, or will threaten the habitat. Other Recommendations Considered by the Committee The Committee members were not able to reach agreement on the following proposed recommendations. Position statements are provided by the committee members to delineate the issues. 1) That recognition be given, in the law if it isn't already, that maintenance of wildlife populations by the Game and Fish Department in excess of resources available to support them constitutes a taking of property from private business interests, whether such taking occurs on private, state or federal land. 2) That it be recognized that the requirements for reporting wildlife depredation, and the means for mitigation and compensation therefor, are not adequately covered by Title 17, ARS . 3 ) That the Game and Fish Department be held accountable, in the law, for any adverse effects on the livestock industry, whether on public or private land, caused by the state's wildlife populations. 4 ) That it be recognized that the livestock industry in Arizona, which has developed and in large part manages the resources which influence wildlife populations use, operates on a combination of private, state and federal land. Since individual ranch units are managed individually, establishment and maintenance of wildlife populations, hunt numbers, and hunt seasons must be coordinated with ranchers by the Game and Fish Department on an individual ranch basis. 5) That, due to an extreme and uncontrolled increase in elk populations in excess of both the Game and Fish Department's long range plans and the natural resources to sustain them, elk populations be immediately reduced to levels reported by the Game and Fish Department in 1980 or less, depending on resource conditions. 6 ) A Wildlife Depredation Board be established under the Arizona Department of Agriculture and be empowered to process, hear, and adjudicate depredation claims. The Board would be constituted of five members; a representative of the Livestock Board, a rancher, a sportsman, a Game and Fish Commission member and a public member. 7) That, as a management tool and means of mitigating problems and coordination with ranchers in resource decisions, a system of revenue sharing be created by law in which the Game and Fish Department would set aside a percentage of game permits, with the revenue therefrom to be divided between the Game and Fish Department and cooperating ranchers. Funds derived by the Game and Fish Department from the system should be used to fund habitat improvement and to mitigate actual or potential depredation. The rancher portion of revenues collected from the permits set aside for the program should be allocated on a proportionate basis of total ranch acreage to total acreage within a game unit. All funds should be collected and distributed by the Game and Fish Department, and all game species should be subject to the shared revenue permit program. APPENDIX 1 39TH LEGISLATURE BIG GAME RANCHING STUDY CHAPTER 182 HOUSE BILL 2158 AN ACT RELATING TO GAME AND FISH; PROVIDING FOR A BIG GAME RANCHING STUDY COMMITTEE; PRESCRIBING MEMBERS, COMPENSATION AND DUTIES; PRESCRIBING A REPORT, AND PROVIDING FOR A DELAYED REPEAL. Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona: Section 1. Biq qame ranchinq study committee A. A big game ranching study committee is established consisting of the following members: 1. One member of the senate appointed by the president of the senate. 2. One member of the house of representatives appointed by the speaker of the house of representatives. 3. Two members who represent the range cattle growing industry appointed by the governor. 4. Two members of the Arizona game and fish commission appointed by the chairman of the commission. 5. One member who represents the wool growing industry appointed by the governor. 6. One member who represents an organized sportsmen's group appointed by the governor. ?. The state land commissioner or designated state land department representative chosen by the state land commissioner. 8. The committee shall select a chairman and vice- chairman from among its members. Members of the committee are not eleigible for compensation for their service but members appointed pursuant to subsection A, paragraphs 1, 2 and 4 are elegible for reimbursement of expenses by their respective appointive bodies. Members of the committee appointed pursuant to subsection A, paragraphs 3 and 5 are eligible for reimbursement of expenses from the Arizona livestock board. The member appointed pursuant to subsection A , paragraph 6, is eligible for reimbursement of expenses from the Arizona game and fish commission. C. The committee shall study the feasibility of establishing a program for ranchers and landowners to recover costs associated with big game on their property. D. On or before December 15, 1989, the committee shall submit a final report of its findings and recommendations to the governor, the president of the senate, the speaker of the house of representatives, the Arizona game and fish commission and the Arizona livestock board. Sec. 2 Repeal This act is repealed from and after December 15, 1989. List of Exhibits Arizona House Bill 2158 Minutes of Committee and Subcommittee Meetings Statement by Forest Service Handout by BLM Fort Apache Elk Management Plan Handouts by U. S. Forest Service 10/ 18/ 89 Report to the Big Game Ranching Study Committee, Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona Game and Fish Big Game Population Estimates Handout by U. S. Forest Service 11/ 1/ 89 Game and Fish Department statement for the record 9/ 26/ 89 Arizona Big Game Strategic Plans, Arizona Game and Fish Arizona Wildlife and Fisheries Comprehensive Plan - Kaibab National Forest " Fort Apache Elk" article, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Depredation compensation states summary and supplement, Arizona Game and Fish. Livestock Industry presentation and statements Statement, Lee Kohlhase, Arizona Wildlife Foundation Statement, Jack Simon, Arizona Wildlife Foundation Statement, Robert Bayne, Tucson Rod and Gun Club Statement, Fred Baker, Position Statement on Wildlife Depredation, Arizona Game and Fish Department Livestock Industry comments specific to Arizona Game and Fish Department Position Paper and comments to the Committee Arizona Livestock Background and Policy Statement Letter from the Forest Service 12/ 4/ 89 Letter from Janet R. Huebner, R. N. Arizona Farm Bureau Federation comments 12/ 7/ 89 Information from Jack Simon, Arizona Wildlife Federation Letter from Forest Service, 12/ 12/ 89, to M. J. Hassell Letter from Forest Service, 12/ 12/ 89, to Pamela Neal Statement from Robert K. Button, 12/ 13/ 89 Arizona Game and Fish Response to Livestock Industry statements, 12/ 13/ 89 and other comments Public Lands Council fact sheet, 4/ 17/ 89 STATEKENT BY M. J. HASSELL BEFORE THE BIG GAVE RANCHING STUDY COMMITTE~ Friday, December 15. 1989 MR. CHAIRMAN: - THE 39TH STATE LEGISLATURE PASSED HOUSE BILL 2158 IN RESPONSE TO CONCERNS OF LIVESTOCK INTERESTS IN ARIZONA. THE LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY SEES INCREASING BIG GAME NUMBERS AS AN IMMEDIATE THREAT TO THEIR LIVELIHOOD AND WAY OF LIFE. THEY FELT THERE WAS NO AVENUE OPEN TO THEM TO RESOLVE THIS THREAT OTHER THAN ASKING FOR ASSISTANCE FROM THEIR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES. THE LAW, AS PASSED, SET UP A COMMITTEE CONSISTING OF 2 MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE, 3 MEMBERS REPRESENTING WILDLIFE INTERESTS, 3 MEMBERS WHO WOULD REPRESENT LIVESTOCK INTERESTS AND, FINALLY, THE STATE LAND COMMISSIONER. - THE PURPOSE OF THE COMMITTEE IS SIMPLE IN CONCEPT-- TO STUDY THE FEASIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A PROGRAM FOR RANCHERS AND LANDOWNERS TO RECOVER COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH BIG GAVE ON THEIR PROPERTY. - WHILE SIMPLE IN CONCEPT, THE TASK GIVEN THIS SUBCOMMITTEE IS A DIFFICULT ONE CHARGED WITH EMOTION AND WITH MANY INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS TAKING AN ACTIVE INTEREST IN THE OUTCOME. - ON THE ONE HAND, THOSE WHO STRONGLY FAVOR WILDLIFE INTERESTS ARE ADAMANT THAT WILDLIFE BE FAVORED IN ALL CONFLICT SITUATIONS. - ON THE OTHER HAND, LIVESTOCK INTERESTS SEE DAMAGE OCCURRING TO THE FORAGE RESOURCE AND INVESTMENTS MADE TO ENHANCE OR TO MAKE BETTER USE OF THE FORAGE RESOURCE BEING WIPED OUT BY OVERGRAZING BY THE RAPIDLY INCREASING NUMBER OF ELK WHO USE THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LANDS. - IN SPITE OF THE POLARIZED POSITIONS, THIS SUBCOMMITTEE WORKED HARD TO FIND AREAS OF AGREEMENT IN THE ISSUES AND SOLUTIONS TO THE CONFLICTS WE NOW FACE. - THE PRINCIPLE AREAS OF AGREEMENT ARE: - BOTH WILDLIFE AND LIVESTOCK ARE IMPORTANT TO OUR STATE. THAT HEALTHY HABITAT IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF ALL CONCERNED. - THAT WHERE DAMAGE TO THE HABITAT IS HAPPENING OR IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN TO STOP OR PREVENT DAMAGE. - THERE WERE OTHER AREAS OF AGREEMENT THAT ARE DOCUMENTED IN OUR REPORT. - WHILE THERE WAS CONSIDERABLE AGREEMENT ON ISSUES, THERE WAS ONLY LIMITED AGREEMENT ON SOLUTIONS. - THERE ARE SEVERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FROM GAME AND FISH IN OUR REPORT THAT WERE AGREED UPON AND THAT I BELIEVE WILL BE USEFUL IF IMPLEMENTED IN HELPING TO BETTER DEAL WITH LIVESTOCK/ WILDLIFE CONFLICTS. - HOWEVER, OUR REPORT ALSO CONTAINS RECOMMENDATIONS GIVEN BY THE LIVESTOCK INTERESTS THAT THIS COMMITTEE COULD NOT DEVELOP A CONSENSUS ON. - THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY REFLECT THE SENSE OF URGENCY AND FRUSTRATION THEY FEEL IN THE CURRENT SITUATION. - WHILE THE LIVESTOCK INTERESTS HAVE AGREED WITH SEVERAL RECOMMENDATIONS THEY BELIEVE THESE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE LONGER TERM SOLUTIONS OR EVEN MOTHERHOOD ANSWERS THAT ARE NOT RESPONSIVE TO WHAT THEY PERCEIVE TO BE AN IMMEDIATE THREAT. - THEY FEEL VERY STRONGLY THAT WE ARE I N A C R I S I S SITUATION AND THAT ACTION MUST BE TAKEN NOW TO REDUCE WILDLIFE POPULATIONS WHERE THEY ARE EXCESSIVE. I N ADDITION, THEY FEEL THAT POPULATIONS, ONCE REDUCED, MUST BE HELD TO ACCEPTABLE LEVELS. - ON THE OTHER HAND, GAME AND FISH MANAGEMENT FEEL THEY HAVE BEEN AND ARE NOW, RESPONSIVE TO COMPLAINTS OF DAMAGE CAUSED BY WILDLIFE. THEY HAVE OFFERED RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WOULD ENHANCE THE WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT DECISION PROCESS AND MAKE POSSIBLE COOPERATIVE PROJECTS FOR HABITAT IMPROVEMENT AND PROTECTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY. - MR. CHAIRMAN, BEFORE HANDING OVER THE REPORT I WOULD LIKE TO STATE SOME PERSONAL BELIEFS AND OPINIONS. - ? - ELK POPULATIONS ARE GOVERNED ALMOST ENTIRELY BY WHAT THE UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, THE WHITE MOUNTAIN APACHE INDIAN RESERVATION AND THE ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT DO WITH THE HABITAT AND THE HUNT. ACTION BY THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, THE STATE LAND DEPARTMENT OR ANY PRIVATE LANDOWNER WILL NOT EFFECT POPULATION LEVELS TO ANY SIGNIFICANT EXTENT. - LIVESTOCK NUMBERS, WHILE DISPUTED, HAVE LARGELY ' BEEN STATIC OR DOWNWARD ON THE NATIONAL FORESTS. - I N CONTRAST, ELK NUMBERS HAVE PROBABLY TRIPLED I N THE LAST 10 YEARS AND I T APPEARS THAT GAME POPULATIONS WILL CONTINUE TO INCREASE. - PERHAPS THE MAJOR REASON FOR THIS INCREASE IS THE FACT THAT THE PUBLIC DECISION- MAKING PROCESSES BY GOVERNMENTAL BODIES AND AGENCIES FAVORS WILDLIFE. - WHAT THE FOREST SERVICE DOES ABOUT WILDLIFE HABITAT IS DETERMINED TO GREAT EXTENT BY PUBLIC INPUT INTO FOREST PLANS AND THIS INPUT HAS TENDED TO FAVOR WILDLIFE. - SEASON AND HARVEST LEVELS FOR WILDLIFE ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE STATE GAME AND FISH AND ARE HEAVILY INFLUENCED BY PUBLIC INPUT AND ARE THE PRODUCT OF A PROCESS THAT TOTALLY FAVORS WILDLIFE INTERESTS. - SINCE PUBLIC PROCESSES OF PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT PI.,, NNING AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT HAVE FAVORED WILDLIFE, THE RESULT IS LARGE AND INCREASING NUMBERS OF ELK. AS A RESULT THE LIVESTOCK INTERESTS ON SOME FEDERAL PUBLIC LANDS ARE THREATENED. - IT IS ALSO APPARENT TO ME THAT IN SOME PLACES EXCESSIVE OVERUSE AND UNCONTROLLED USE IS BEGINNING TO CAUSE DAMAGE TO THE BASIC RESOURCE, THAT IS THE SOIL AND THE VEGETATION WHICH GROWS UPON IT. IF LAST YEAR'S DROUTH CONTINUES, THE DAMAGE WILL TAKE PLACE AT AN INCREASING RATE. - A 300 PERCENT INCREASE IN ELK NUMBERS OVER THE LAST 10 YEARS 1s NOT ONLY CONFLICTING WITH LIVESTOCK, IT HAS AN IMPACT ON ALL ANIMAL SPECIES DEPENDENT ON THE VEGETATIVE RESOURCE. IN OTHER WORDS, WILDLIFE WILL ALSO BE A LOSER IF DAMAGE CONTINUES TO OCCUR. SURELY, WE HAVE NOT FORGOTTEN THE LESSON OF THE NORTH KAIBAB DEER HERD DISASTER OF THE 19201S, OR HAVE WE? ON THE KAIBAB DEER NUMBERS INCREASED FAR BEYOND THE FORAGE CAPACITY AND EACH WINTER THOUSANDS OF DEER DIED OF STARVATION. IN A MAJOR CONFRONTATION BETWEEN THE STATE AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THE FEDS HIRED HUNTERS TO KILL THOUSANDS OF DEER IN AN ATTEMPT TO PROTECT THE HABITAT. THE LAST ' MAJOR DIE- OFF OCCURRED IN THE 1950' s AND THE SCARS ON THE HABITAT, PARTICULARLY THE WINTER RANGES, ARE CLEARLY VISIBLE YET TODAY. - IF EVENTS CONTINUE ON THEIR PRESENT COURSE, I. E. INCREASING ELK NUMBERS, STATIC LIVESTOCK NUMBERS, DROUTH, AN ECOLOGICAL DISASTER IS IN THE MAKING. IT WILL NOT ONLY BE AN ECOLOGICAL DISASTER, IT WILL ALSO BE AN ECONOMIC DISASTER FOR THE RANCHER. - 6- - IF THIS DISASTER IS TO BE AVOIDED, THEN THOSE WHO ARE IN A POSITION TO TAKE MEANINGFUL ACTION MUST DO SO NOW. THIS MEANS THE FOREST SERVICE, THE GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT AND THE WHITE MOUNTAIN APACHES. - ELK POPULATIONS ON THE PLATEAU MUST BE AT A LEVEL COMPATIBLE WITH HABITAT CONDITIONS ON KEY AREAS AND THEY MUST BE HELD TO THESE LEVELS. LIVESTOCK NUMBERS ON THESE AREAS ARE CONTROLLED BY FEDERAL PUBLIC LAND MANAGERS. ELK POPULATIONS CAN ONLY BE CONTROLLED BY THE STATE. - I AM NOT OPTIMISTIC THE LEGISLATURE CAN SOLVE THIS PROBLEM. FIRST OF ALL, THE NATIONAL FORESTS ARE UNDER FEDERAL MANAGEMENT AND THEREFORE, NOT SUBJECT TO MANAGEMENT DIRECTION FROM THE STATE LEGISLATURE. THIS LEAVES THE POSSIBILITY OF DOING SOMETHING LEGISLATIVELY ABOUT WILDLIFE NUMBERS. IN STATES WHERE SUCH LAWS HAVE BEEN PASSED ARGUMENTS CONTINUE AND ARE A SOURCE OF POLITICAL IRRITATION. WORST OF ALL, HABITAT DEPREDATION CONTINUES; WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT IS NO BETTER FOR IT ALL. NONE OF THE THINGS THE ARIZONA LEGISLATURE COULD DO WOULD BE POPULAR AND NONE THAT I CAN SEE WOULD SOLVE THE PROBLEM. THERE ARE TWO INTERESTS INVOLVED HERE THAT COULD AND SHOULD TAKE STEPS TO RESOLVE CONFLICTS. - SPORTSMEN DO NOT GIVE CREDIT DUE, IN MY OPINION, TO THE EFFORT OF THE LIVESTOCK OPERATOR. - THEY POINT OUT THAT ARIZONA IS DIFFERENT THAN OTHER STATES BECAUSE IT HAS SO LITTLE PRIVATE LAND. - IT IS DIFFERENT ALRIGHT, BUT I BELIEVE THE BIG DIFFERENCE IS OVERLOOKED BY WILDLIFE INTERESTS. THE KEY DIFFERENCE IS THE IMPORTANCE OF WATER -- MUCH OF WHICH WOULD NOT EXIST FOR USE BY WILDLIFE AND LIVESTOCK IF THE RANCHER HAD NOT DEVELOPED THE WELLS AND WATER CATCHMENTS. FURTHERMORE, MANY OF THE EXISTING WATERS, EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY BE ON PUBLIC LAND, ARE PRIVATE WATER RIGHTS. - RESPONSIBLE LIVESTOCK OPERATORS ARE DAY- TO- DAY STEWARDS OF THE LAND, BE IT PUBLIC OR PRIVATE, AND ALL INTERESTS BENEFIT FROM THEIR DAILY STEWARDSHIP. - VANDALISM TO IMPROVEMENTS AND BAD MANNERS BY A FEW HUNTERS INCREASE TENSIONS. LIVESTOCK OPERATORS, ON THE OTHER HAND, TOO OFTEN CONFUSE THEIR STEWARDSHIP WITH OWNERSHIP OF PUBLIC LAND. NOTHING IS MORE INFURIATING TO A HUNTER THAN BEING DRIVEN AWAY FROM PUBLIC LAND BY A RANCHER OR HAVING ACCESS BLOCKED BECAUSE OF A SMALL PIECE OF PRIVATE LAND. THIS HAPPENS ALL TOO OFTEN AND EVENTUALLY SPORTSMEN WILL SECURE THEIR RIGHTS BY GOING AROUND OR OVER THIS SELFISH STANCE. THE LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY IS NOTORIOUS FOR RATIONALIZING THE MISCONDUCT OF A FEW OF THEIR MEMBERS. THIS CANNOT HELP BUT AGGRAVATE THE SITUATION. IT IS TIME FOR THESE GROUPS TO SEE THEIR COMMON INTERESTS AND TO WORK TOGETHER THROUGH LAND MANAGEMENT PLANS AND HUNTING RULES TO STABILIZE WILDLIFE AND LIVESTOCK NUMBERS ON NATIONAL FOREST AND INDIAN LANDS. IF THEY DO NOT, THEY WILL EACH LOSE AND PERHAPS THE BIGGEST LOSER OF ALL WILL BE WILDLIFE. - YOUR COMMITTEE HAS BEEN A FORUM FOR AIRING CONCERNS, RECEIVING TESTIMONY, REVIEWING PRACTICES IN OTHER WESTERN STATES, DOCUMENTING ISSUES, AND HELPING BOTH SIDES TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEMS - MR. CHAIRMAN, I AM SORRY THAT YOUR SUBCOMMITTEE COULD NOT - 9- FIND EASY ANSWERS TO THE PROBLEM BEFORE IT, BUT THERE ARE NONE. THIS IS ONE OF THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE CITIZENS MUST FIND THE COMMON GROUND AND WORK TOGETHER. THE WORK DONE BY THIS COMMITTEE CAN AND SHOULD SERVE AS A STARTING POINT FOR FUTURE EFFORTS TO SOLVE CONFLICTS THAT ARE WITH US TODAY. - AND FINALLY, MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAND YOU THE REPORT YOUR SUBCOMMITTEE HAS DEVELOPED AFTER MANY HOURS OF HEARINGS AND DISCUSSION. THIS REPORT WAS ACCEPTED UNANIMOUSLY BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE AT THEIR MEETING ON WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1989. THE REPORT WAS FULLY ACCEPTED SUBJECT ONLY TO CORRECTION OF ERRORS AND OMISSIONS WITH FULL AGREEMENT FROM ALL MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE THAT THIS CONSTITUTED OUR FINAL REPORT. WORKING ON THIS REPORT HAS BEEN EDUCATIONAL FOR ME AND I BELIEVE FOR ALL THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS. I RECOMMEND YOU ACCEPT IT AS WRITTEN.

you wish to report:

Your comment:

Your Name:

Submit

Cancel

...

Find results with:

Searching collections:

Home Big Game Ranching Study Committee report

Big Game Ranching Study Committee report

Description