i

A Practical Guide toState-Landowner Partnerships

ByDonald R. Leal

and J. Bishop Grewell

HUNTING FOR HABITAT

ii

Copyright © 1999 by the Political EconomyResearch Center.

All rights reserved. No part of this publicationmay be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,or transmitted in any form or by any means,electrical, mechanical, photocopy, recording orotherwise, without prior consent of the publisher.

Political Economy Research Center502 South 19th Avenue, Suite 211Bozeman MT 59718

Phone: (406) 587-9591 • Fax: (406) 586-7555E-mail: perc@perc.org • Web site: www.perc.org

ISBN 0-9668243-2-6

Cover design by Daphne Gillam.Cover illustration by James Lindquist.

iii

CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

TEXAS: A MODEL

BENEFITS

CONTROVERSIES

MAJOR STATE PROGRAMS

FLEDGLING STATE PROGRAMS

OTHER PROGRAMS

THE FUTURE OF RANCHING FOR WILDLIFE

CONCLUSION

NOTES

REFERENCES

APPENDIX A: TYPICAL HABITAT IMPROVEMENTS

APPENDIX B: RANCHING FOR WILDLIFE

PROGRAMS

APPENDIX C: ADDITIONAL CONTACTS

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

ABOUT PERC

iv

1

3

5

7

12

17

35

42

47

55

55

57

61

63

65

67

68

iv

Developing a manual of this kind would not be possiblebut for the accomplishments of wildlife entrepreneurslike Wayne Long, who helped set up the first formalranching for wildlife program in California. Theseindividuals brought about a revolution in wildlifemanagement and hunting on private lands.

In addition, the authors are grateful to those statewildlife managers who took time to explain the historyand status of their states’ programs. In particular, theauthors wish to thank Ken Mayer of the CaliforniaDepartment of Fish and Game, John Seidel, formerly ofthe Colorado Division of Wildlife, Wes Shields andMike Welch of the Utah Division of Wildlife Re-sources, Dale Hall and Michael Catanach of the NewMexico Department of Game and Fish, Jerry Shaw ofthe Oklahoma Department of Wildlife, Gary Herron ofthe Nevada Division of Wildlife, Rolf Johnson and JimTabor of the Washington Department of Fish andWildlife, Dan Edwards of the Oregon Department ofFish and Wildlife, and Kaush Arha of the WyomingGame and Fish Department.

The authors are especially grateful to Terry Andersonand Clay Landry for their helpful comments on earlydrafts. The authors also wish to thank Jane Shaw for hereditorial advice and Dianna Rienhart for her desktoppublishing support. And a debt of gratitude is owed tothe Jaquelin Hume Foundation and the Orvis-PerkinsFoundation for providing financial support.

Finally, the authors wish to express personal thanks.Donald Leal wishes to pay personal tribute to hisgrandfather, John Alvin Orzalli, who helped nurture adeep love of wildlife and enjoyment of hunting. BishopGrewell is indebted to his father, John, and all the otherearly hunting buddies, even though they spent moretime playing cards than actually pursuing game.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

■

iv

1

INTRODUCTION

At first glance, the way that Jarrell Massey and hisfamily run their two Colorado ranches may seemstrange. Taking land out of wheat production,Massey and his sons have reseeded it with legumes,grasses, and flowering plants. They have plantedwillow saplings and set fires to encourage nativevegetation. They have dug water holes, developedsprings, and created ponds, and they keep theircattle away from some prime grazing land.

These activities, still unusual among ranchers, havea payoff—for the Masseys, for hunters, and forwildlife. Streams flow through the property. Deerand elk thrive, as do beavers, muskrats, game birds,

and rabbits. Golden eagles and song-birds, including the mountain bluebird,abound.1 Hunters are eager to huntthere, even for premium prices, becausethe land is uncrowded and they have avery good chance of harvesting either amature bull elk or a buck mule deer.2

The Masseys’ success at improving wildlife habitathas won them a burgeoning consulting business(Fears 1996; Gooch 1998b).

Jarrell Massey credits Colorado’s Ranching forWildlife program for spurring these activities.Ranching for wildlife, now in eight states, is a state-managed program based on cooperative agreementsbetween landowners and state wildlife agencies. Theprograms encourage landowners to invest time,money, and resources to increase wildlife and huntingopportunities on their properties. In return, the statemodifies hunting regulations on those ranches so thatlandowners can capture more benefits from feehunting. The modifications typically include longer

Ranching forwildlife encourages

landowners toimprove hunting

and enhancehabitat.

2

hunting seasons, ranch-specific harvest limits, and anopportunity for hunters to obtain game tags fromlandowners without having to go through the statelottery system.

Don’t let the name “ranching for wildlife” put youoff; this is not “game ranching” behind fences.Rather, such programs are designed to increase thequality of free-roaming wildlife populations as wellas improve the experience for hunters. The payofffor state wildlife officials is that the market, ratherthan already strained agency operating budgets,provides incentives for landowners to improvehabitat and hunting. The reward for hunters is a

substantial increase in land where thequality of the game is high and wherehunting pressure is low.

Despite the benefits, these programs arecontroversial. Started in the 1980s, they

build on the growing practice of fee hunting, whichsome hunter groups vehemently oppose. High-quality hunting sometimes commands high prices,and some hunters cannot or do not want to pay highfees. Thus, political opposition to fee hunting leadsto political opposition to ranching for wildlife.

This manual explains the details of ranching forwildlife. Our goal is to provide a better understand-ing of the programs. It is our hope that with moreknowledge people who are skeptical of ranching forwildlife may become advocates for well-designedprograms in their own states.

Be assuredthat ranchingfor wildlife

is notgame ranching.

3

In the United States, the state governments regulatemost game species and therefore hunting (Lueck1995). Through their wildlife agencies, the states sethunting seasons, determine daily and seasonal baglimits, and decide how many licenses for specificgame animals will be sold. They set the fees for theselicenses and allocate them between resident andnonresident hunters. They also regulate the sale ofwildlife products such as antlers and meat, as well asthe hunting tactics and weapons that can be used.

Yet politics often thwarts the goal of achievinghealthy big game populations. In most states, politicalpressures keep the price of hunting licenses low—atleast for state residents. This means that the size of anagency’s budget is largely determined by the numberof licenses sold. Agencies are left with only oneoption: Sell more licenses. To do this, states maxi-mize game numbers. Such an approach inevitablyleads to herds with many females and young malesand few mature males (Wenders 1995, 91).

In addition, since state agencies can, at best, controlthe number of licenses issued on a regional basis,they cannot directly control the number of hunterson specific ranches. Small areas with abundantgame can be overrun with hunters. In sum, the lackof trophy animals and lack of local control of hunt-ing pressure lead to dissatisfaction among manyhunters (Anderson and Houser 1995).

Enter the landowner. Most of the prime habitat in theUnited States is held privately, so that landownersplay a pivotal role in creating an environment condu-cive to wildlife (Langner 1987; Wigley and Melchiors1987; Gerard 1995). Additionally, because landown-

BACKGROUND

4

ers have rights against trespass, they can control thenumber of hunters on their land to keep huntingpressure low. In response to a growing demand forbetter hunting, many landowners are charging feesto hunters for limited access to their lands.

However, landowners are constrained in what theycan do to improve hunting on their property. While

they can upgrade habitat, they are notcompletely free to manage their hunts.For example, they cannot freely harvestanimals to control the ratio of females tomales in a herd—an important step,wildlife biologists say, in managing for

quality game. Ranches may have an overabundanceof cows or does but the state may issue too few tags,or the season may be too short, for landowners toreduce the ratio.

Ranching for wildlife addresses these limitations byinvolving both landowners and state agencies inachieving healthy wild animal populations. As longas state governments control the taking of game,completely free markets in hunting cannot exist.However, ranching for wildlife helps landownersmanage wildlife on their property so that they contrib-ute to the goals of the public as well as their own.

A more fundamental achievement of ranching forwildlife is to improve the environment for manykinds of wildlife, from beavers to warblers—not justgame animals. Environmentalists increasinglyrecognize that if landowners are to maintain openspace and natural landscapes, they must have incen-tives. Ranching for wildlife allows the market toprovide these incentives. “As human populations

Landowners andstate agenciescooperate to

achieve healthyanimal populations.

5

continue to rise, so do market pressures to convertland into subdivisions and shopping malls,” saysAlan Christensen of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foun-dation. “If conservation groups do not step forwardto work with private landowners, other interestswill” (quoted in Stalling 1999, 73).

Similarly, the Greater Yellowstone Coalition pro-poses ranching for wildlife as one way of protectingnatural habitat around Yellowstone National Park.“Most open private lands that have not been devel-oped belong to farmers or ranchers, ” says a paperby the coalition (Glick et al. 1998, 8). Incentive-based programs like ranching for wildlife “increasethe profitability of maintaining working ranches asopen space and wildlife habitat” (Glick et al. 1998,19). Aldo Leopold (1991, 202), the prominent earlyenvironmentalist, wrote that “conservation willultimately boil down to rewarding the privatelandowner who conserves the public interest.”

Ranching for wildlife is not the only way to achievequality wildlife conditions and better hunting oppor-tunities. Although Texas has no formal ranching forwildlife program, the state as a whole has achievedmany of the goals of these programs. Because morethan 97 percent of the land in Texas is private,owners rarely compete with free hunting on publicland, so they have an incentive to manage their landto appeal to fee-paying hunters.

The state furthers these goals by allowing long deerseasons (two to three months) and liberal bag limits

TEXAS: A MODEL

6

(hunters are allowed as many as four deer in someregions). Landowners control their harvests be-cause they have a financial stake in ensuring thatabundance and quality of wildlife on their proper-ties is maintained from year to year. Less regula-tory interference gives these landowners latitude inorganizing and managing hunts, leading to bettermanagement and to a wide variety of huntingopportunities.

Texas has the flexibility and incentives for whichranching for wildlife strives. It is by far the leader interms of the number of landowners who have insti-

FIGURE 1: HUNTING PRICES IN TEXAS

Source: Baen (1997)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

$100-199

$200-399

$400-599

$600-799

$800-999

$1000-1199

$1200-1399

$1400-1599

$1600+

Pri

ce R

ange

Number of Ranches

7

tuted fee hunting. A study by Butler and Workman(1993) found that 52 percent of the Texas ranchessurveyed offered fee hunting. The result is a widearray of hunting opportunities and price ranges inTexas (see Figure 1).

Yes, luxurious trophy white-tailed deer hunts inTexas can cost from $2,000 to $4,000 per hunt, butother hunts are much less expensive. According to a1996 survey of Texas landowners, the averageannual lease-price charged to a hunter was $634(Baen 1997). This is $224 less than big game hunt-ers in the United States in 1996 were willing tospend just to travel to a hunting site, obtain lodging,and obtain the desired equipment to hunt (U.S.Department of the Interior et al. 1997, 24).

In addition to its private hunting market, Texas hascooperative game management, which allows somemodification of the state’s already-liberal regula-tions. Landowners with a state-approved wildlifemanagement plan can receive managed lands deer(MLD) permits. These allow hunters to take moredeer than can be taken under standard regulations(Texas Parks & Wildlife Department 1999).

In other western states, ranching for wildlife providesmany of the benefits found in Texas. In these states,much of the land is public and access has beentraditionally free. Until recently, this free accessdiscouraged private landowners from even maintain-ing habitat, let alone planting forage or buildingponds to attract game animals. Landowners could not

BENEFITS

8

earn enough from fee hunting to justify the expense.

With the decline of quality hunting opportunities onpublic lands, however, more hunters are willing topay for better hunting, and landowners are respond-ing to this demand by offering hunting access for afee. Through ranching for wildlife, state wildlifeagencies can build on this foundation.

To appreciate ranching for wildlife, it is necessary toreview the benefits it provides. All participants—landowners, wildlife officials, and hunters—makegains.

LANDOWNERS

Ranching for wildlife gives landowners incentivesto earn a profit from enhancing wildlife conditionsand makes it easier for them to integrate huntingwith other activities such as raising livestock.These benefits come through regulatory changesin three areas:

• Longer seasons. In general, states keep huntingseasons short in order to protect wildlife fromoverexploitation. However, longer seasons areappropriate when landowners limit the numberof hunters and control the number of animalstaken on their properties. In Utah, for example,the general rifle season for deer and elk beginsin mid-October and lasts only ten days. Butlandowners in the state’s ranching for wildlifeprogram are at liberty to set their individualseasons anywhere between September 1 andOctober 31.3 Washington’s ranching for wild-

9

life program offers a three-month mule deerseason, compared to nine days outside theprogram.

With the additional hunting days, landowners cantime hunts farther apart to minimize huntingpressure on the animals, schedule hunts before orafter general hunting seasons when animals aremore active and easier to find, and include small-party hunts. They can also shut down huntingwhile rounding up cattle or preparing soil for nextyear’s crop—and then open it up again after theseactivities are over. Because a longer season offersa better chance of harvesting trophy animals, morehunters are willing to pay landowners a premiumfor these hunts.

• Transferable game tags. Normally, in addition to ageneral hunting license, each hunter must acquire atag to hunt a particular big game species, availableonly from the state. Under ranching for wildlife, aparticipating landowner is guaranteed from thestate a mutually agreed-upon number of big gametags each year, good only for the owner’s propertybut transferable to other individuals. Transferabil-ity is valuable when a state limits the number ofgeneral-season tags, as it typically does for out-of-state hunters.

Transferable tags allow landowners to selectwhom they want to hunt on their land and toassure these hunters that tags will be available thefollowing year. Guaranteed tags encouragehunters to treat the property with respect, becausethe landowner has the power to decide if theyreturn or not. The tags also give landowners an

10

incentive to offer a quality hunt, so that desiredhunting clients will return.

• Ranch-specific harvests. Because each propertyhas a limited number of tags, state wildlifemanagers can allow harvest levels that reflect thewildlife conditions of the property and the goalsof the landowner. Landowners with too many elkor deer on their property are able to harvest morefemales than would be allowed under typicalregional bag limits. Similarly, landowners whowant more trophy bucks or bulls for their hunt-ers can reduce competition for food and habitatthrough higher harvests of females.

In return for these advantages, typical programsrequire landowners to follow a ranch-specificwildlife management plan. The plan is designed bythe landowner in conjunction with the state agency.

STATE WILDLIFE AGENCIES

Ranching for wildlife opens up opportunities forstate agencies to extend their game management toprivate lands. Benefits come in three areas:

• More precise management. Ranching for wild-life specifies harvest limits on each ranch,outlines planned habitat improvements on theproperty, and describes the methods by which alandowner will monitor and report on wildlifeand harvests. Because landowners work closelywith the state agencies, they become importantallies, and state managers have a better chanceof achieving their wildlife goals.

11

• More leverage with landowners. State wildlifemanagers are often frustrated by their inability toinfluence what private owners do on their prop-erty. Ranching for wildlife allows state officialsto work with landowners, offering longer seasonsand ranch-specific harvest strategies to makewildlife and hunting more compatible withagricultural operations.

• Greater agency savings. Ranching for wildlife canreduce the costs of compensating ranchers for cropor forage depredation since game numbers arebetter controlled. It can also take the place ofexpensive land purchases or cost-sharing pro-grams to improve habitat.

HUNTERS

The new freedom for landowners leads to newopportunities for sportsmen. They now have analternative to the crowded conditions and the poorgame prospects that plague many public lands.Specific attractions include:

• Better hunting. In Colorado from 1993 to 1997, elkhunters had a 70 percent success rate on ranchingfor wildlife lands compared with 38 percent onother lands (Buschena, Anderson, and Leonard1998). Data from this study indicate that lotteryhunters are willing to pay more to hunt on ranch-ing for wildlife lands.4 Moreover, the benefits ofranching for wildlife extend beyond individualproperties because herds of mature game animalsroam from ranches to federal, state, and otherprivate lands.5 In addition, by providing high-

12

quality hunting, the program alleviates some of thepressures on public lands. According to onecommentator, the availability of hunting licensesfrom private landowners in New Mexico caused a20 percent decline in competition for the 1987 biggame lottery (see Arha 1994, 15). Less crowdingalso means fewer people will quit hunting. Thishelps maintain political support for the sport.

• Longer seasons. Hunters have a chance to huntlonger and more often and are better able to fithunting in with their other activities.

• Another source of licenses. For the out-of-statehunter, who in many states must obtain a licenseby lottery, ranching for wildlife ends the uncer-tainty of not knowing whether a hunting licensewill be available. Now hunters can plan theirhunting trips.

In sum, cooperation between the landowner and thestate agency harmonizes the public’s interest in sustain-ing wildlife populations with the landowner’s desireto manage wildlife on his or her property. The resultis better hunting and greater abundance of wildlife.

In spite of these benefits, ranching for wildlife hasbeen held back by controversy. Some landownersobject to its provisions, and many wildlife officialsare cautious. The most vociferous opponents,however, have been some (but certainly not all)hunting groups. These opponents contend thatranching for wildlife encourages “privatization” of

CONTROVERSIES

13

wildlife and closes access to the nonpaying hunter.The Montana Wildlife Federation recently issued adiscussion paper challenging “the threat of privati-zation.” Privatization of wildlife, the paper says,“threatens to alter a vital and honored part ofMontana’s cultural foundation.” It will turn Mon-tana into a “state of ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’ inregards to hunting, angling, and other forms ofwildlife recreation” (Montana Wildlife Federation1999).

The objections are understandable and worth re-viewing. However, as we will see, the criticisms ofranching for wildlife are exaggerated.

Is fee hunting (an element of ranching for wild-life) unfair?

No. Landowners must pay the costs of damagecaused by wildlife, and fee hunting is one waythat they have found to help cover these costs.While a few landowners still allow hunters ontheir property free of charge, the tradition ofwelcoming hunters with a handshake is no longerwidespread in the West, if it ever was. Problemsof liability on the landowner’s part and irrespon-sibility on the hunter’s part have virtually elimi-nated free access. Paying a rancher for access isnot only fair to the landowner, but it encouragesthe landowner to welcome wildlife and foster itsgrowth rather than exclude it.

Does ranching for wildlife encourage high-pricedtrophy hunts?

Yes and no. It makes high-priced trophy hunts

14

attractive to some landowners, but not all ranch-ing for wildlife hunts are expensive. Trophyblacktail deer hunts in California can cost $5,000,but in Tehama County, Bill Burrows and hisfamily provide a fully guided, fully housed, three-day blacktail deer hunt with all the amenities and a70 percent success rate for $800. Eight hundreddollars or nearly $275 a day may sound like a lotfor a hunt, but it includes meals, lodging, and aguide. A two-day wild pig hunt with the sameamenities and a 98 percent success rate goes for$400. “We don’t cater to the trophy market; wecater to quality of life,” says Burrows.6

When comparing seemingly high prices to hunt-ing on public land, critics sometimes ignore thefact that hunters spend money when they hunton public land, too. As noted above, the biggame hunter in the United States spent anaverage of $858 in 1996 for travel, lodging, andequipment to hunt—and undoubtedly additionalfunds on food and drink (U.S. Department of theInterior et al. 1997, 24). The prices of trophyhunts cover food and lodging, often over severaldays, as well as the services of a guide. Thus,access represents only a portion of the fee. Guidedbackcountry trophy hunts on public land can beexpensive as well.

Information about sixteen ranching for wildlifepackages for deer hunts in California (Gooch1998b) indicates a range of prices. Three of thehunts cost less than $1,000, five cost between$1,000 and $1,499, and three were between$1500 and $1999. Only two cost more than$2,000. Prices are generally higher in Colorado,

15

possibly because the state limits the number ofranches in the program to thirty. However, NewMexico, which has over 1,400 ranches in theprogram, has a broad range of prices (see table 3on p. 34).

As ranching for wildlife grows, we can expect agreater diversity of prices because competitionfor hunters will increase. The recently formedGreat Western Hunting Club is already loweringthe costs of big game hunts. Composed of hunterswho want access to quality lands but do not wantor need the services of guides, the club leaseslands in western states for its dues-paying mem-bers. Many of these lands are ranching for wild-life lands. In Utah, for example, the club wel-comed members on such properties for $1,250 aperson for a five-day buck deer hunt in 1999(Causey 1999b). This is well below the 1998average of $3,172 for guided buck deer hunts inUtah under ranching for wildlife.7

Does ranching for wildlife restrict hunters’ accessto land?

No. The evidence suggests that it enhancesaccess. For example:

• In Colorado, 22 of the 26 ranches in the 1998program were off-limits to public huntersbefore the program was implemented, includ-ing the 260,000-acre Forbes Trinchera Ranchand the 55,000-acre Wolf Springs Ranch.8

• Of the sixty ranch units operating in Cali-fornia’s program in 1998, about one-third had

16

been closed to the public for hunting beforethey joined the program. They now are open.Another one-third still allows only friendsand family, and the final third has allowedthe public to hunt both before and afterjoining the program.9

• Many ranching for wildlife programs requireparticipating landowners to accept somehunters without charge. Although this aspectof the program may raise the costs forlandowners (and thus lead to higher pricesfor hunts), it is a way for state agencies toobtain political support for the programs.

Ranching for wildlife offers more quality huntingopportunities for hunters willing to pay landownersfor these experiences. Previously, hunters haddifficulty finding hunts on public lands, which arebecoming barren of mature animals and inundatedwith hunters. In addition, private landowners wereconstrained by season and harvest restrictions whenthey tried to create attractive hunts under general

17

MAJOR STATE PROGRAMS

hunting regulations.To better understand the benefits of ranching forwildlife, we must consider the details of each state’sprograms. Eight states have ranching for wildlife.Four—California, Colorado, Utah, and NewMexico—have comprehensive programs, while fourothers—Oklahoma, Washington, Nevada, andOregon—have fledgling programs. The remainingwestern states do not have ranching for wildlife buthave programs that could provide the basis for suchpartnerships in the future. (See tables 1 and 2, whichsummarize characteristics of the programs.)

TABLE 1: RANCHES AND ACRES ENROLLED

Source: Data provided by state agencies (see appendix B).

StateNumber of

UnitsNumber of

Acres

California 55 685,378

Colorado 24 900,920

Nevada — —

New Mexico 1,442 ~8,000,000

Oklahoma 75 250,000

Oregon — —

Utah 66 1,069,652

Washington 3 200,000

18

Notes: The Nevada program allows some flexibility in when the hunter can go on the land. New Mexico’s program evolved from staterecognition of landowners who helped reintroduce elk to the state in the early 1900s. Oklahoma extends the season minimally toincrease doe removal.Source: Data provided by state agencies (see appendix B).

TABLE 2: CHARACTERISTICS OF STATE PROGRAMS

StateProgram

DateEstablished

ExtendedSeasons

HunterPermits forLandowner

MinimumAcreage

WildlifeManagement

Plan Required

HabitatImprovement

Required

PublicAccess

Required

California 1984 yes yes none yes yes no

Colorado 1989 yes yes 12,000 yes yes yes

Nevada 1998 see note yes none no no no

New Mexico see note no yes none no no yes

Oklahoma 1992 see note yes 1,000 no no yes

Oregon 1995 no yes 40 no no no

Utah 1994 yes yes 10,000 yes no yes

Washington 1997 yes yes 5,000 yes yes yes

19

CALIFORNIA: THE FIRST OFFICIAL PROGRAM

Formally, ranching for wildlife began in California.Because land is continually being developed inCalifornia, state officials face high costs as they tryto preserve open space and hunting land throughland acquisition or conservation easements. ThePrivate Lands Wildlife Habitat Enhancement andManagement Area program, authorized by statelaw in 1984, was designed to lower the cost ofprotecting wildlife habitat (Mansfield, Mayer, andCallas 1989). The program followed a three-yearpilot program on five ranches.

The state gives landowners transferable huntingpermits, extended seasons, and ranch-specificharvest limits. In return, landowners agree to spe-cific steps to improve habitat on their properties, aswell as to carry out other wildlife and hunter man-agement activities.

A landowner who wishes to participate mustcomplete a wildlife management plan that invento-ries the wildlife and habitat on the property andproposes specific objectives and improvements.These may include such actions as creating fenceopenings to ease wildlife movement, installingwood duck nest boxes, planting cereal grains andnative grasses for animal forage, and reestablishingriparian habitat by planting trees. (See appendix Afor examples of habitat improvements.) The com-pleted plan is submitted, along with an applicationfee of $1,250 to $2,000, depending on the size ofthe property, for review by the California Depart-ment of Fish and Game.10

20

Upon approval, the landowner receives a license tooperate a Private Lands Management Area for fiveyears. In the first year, the property must follow thestate’s general hunting regulations, but after that theFish and Game Commission (which has authorityover the Fish and Game Department) may authorizean extended hunting season on the property as well asharvest limits that differ from the general regulations.Such changes depend on the landowner’s progress inimproving habitat and managing wildlife and must beconsistent with the commission’s regional gamemanagement objectives.

The longer hunting season “allows themto close the ranch down for a week if theyso choose,” says Ken Mayer, SeniorWildlife Biologist and former DeerProgram Coordinator for the department.“Then, when they reopen a week later, it’slike the beginning of hunting season.”11

In 1998, sixty properties representing nearly700,000 acres were enrolled, ranging in size from320 acres to 270,000 acres on the Tejon Ranch.12

Most properties are managed for deer, but othermanaged species include antelope, elk, wild pig,wild turkey, and black bear. A few propertiesoffer quail and grouse hunts. Deer hunters onthese lands had a 53 percent chance of harvestinga deer, compared with only 18 percent statewide(Gooch 1998b).

Prices for deer hunting vary according to the lengthof hunt, level of service, and the quality of experi-ence desired. Here are some examples (Gooch1998b):

In 1984,eight landownersparticipated inthe California

program;in 1998, the

number was sixty.

21

• Five Dot Ranch in Lassen County charges a fee of$1,700 per buck taken on its Avila unit. Accord-ing to ranch manager Tom Swickard, “These arebig mountain deer” (Gooch 1998a).

• Meissner Ranch in Shasta County manages forblacktail deer and has had a 100 percent successrate on deer hunts since 1988. The ten tags forbucks available on the property each year cost$500 apiece. Each entitles the hunter to full guideservice, lodging, meals, and field transportation,and a hunt that usually lasts three days.

• Prather Ranch has available ten buck tags, goodfor either blacktail or mule deer. Tags cost $800each. They entitle the purchaser to hunt the ranchfor any length of time over the two-month season.

• The Burrows Ranch, discussed on p. 14, offers afully guided, fully housed, three-day blacktail deerhunt for $800 (with a 70 percent success rate).

• At present, most of the elk hunts under the pro-gram are for the Roosevelt and Tule subspecies.These hunts are for trophy-sized animals, andhence they command a high price—the low-endprice is around $5,000 and the average pricearound $10,000.13

Overall, “strong support for the program has comefrom hunters seeking high-quality hunting opportu-nities,” writes Kaush Arha (1994, 9), a member ofthe Wyoming Game and Fish Department whostudied landowner-incentive programs while at theUniversity of California at Berkeley. Many land-owners have renewed their licenses, and the number

22

of participants has increased from eight ranches orfarms in 1984 to sixty in 1998.14

The program has experienced some bumps alongthe way. While enrollment has generally beenupward, it peaked in 1988 with fifty-six unitsenrolled, then fell to forty-three in 1993. After that,the numbers rose again. The cause of the declineseems to have been higher fees for landowners andpolicies that reduced landowners’ flexibility orraised operating costs. Between 1987 and 1988, for

example, the application fee more thandoubled to $800, and fees for transfer-able buck tags went from $20 to $35(Fitzhugh 1989).

As for habitat improvement, interviewswith fifty-five ranchers revealed that

ranches conducting fee hunting inside the programdid more to enhance the environment than thoseoutside the program (Fitzhugh 1989). Ranching forwildlife has led ranchers to improve forage withcontrolled fires, plant a variety of food for wildlife,reduce livestock grazing, and upgrade water supplies(California Department of Fish and Game 1995).

The program’s more precise management of har-vests appears to be leading to more male animals forindividuals to hunt (Mansfield, Mayer, and Callas1989). Nongame species have also benefited. Forexample, nesting habitat for sandhill cranes hasimproved in northern California (Arha 1994). TheBurrows Ranch installed “wildlife access boards”—reinforced concrete boards one foot wide and sixfeet long—into water troughs to help snakes andsmall birds get to the water for a drink without

Ranchersare planting

forage, reducinglivestock grazing,

and upgradingwater supplies.

23

drowning. In Mendocino County, the Potter ValleyRanch installed nesting boxes for bluebirds (Califor-nia Department of Fish and Game 1995). See appen-dix A for typical habitat improvements.

The experience of Multiple Use Managers Inc.(MUM), a company that specializes in wildliferecreation, indicates how a high-end program canoperate. At the 17,000-acre Shamrock Ranch inMendocino County, California, MUM runs four-day trophy hunts for the Tule elk. The price is$10,000 per tag. The hunts generate revenues ofabout $160,000 per year, while allowing the herdto grow. The firm has started a permanent pasturefor the elk by planting 100 acres of timothy, wheatgrass, and clover.

On MUM’s Eden Valley Ranch, a four-day Tule elkhunt costs $11,000, and a four-day trophy blacktaildeer hunt costs $3,500. Every blacktail buck takenduring 1997 scored over 120 points in the SafariClub International measurement system. Revenuesfrom the hunts fund habitat improvements such asclearing decayed brush and controlled burning toeradicate yellow star thistle. They have also fundedthe planting of wild rice for blacktail deer, turkey,and ducks.

A hunter visiting a MUM property has no problemseeing between 100 to 300 deer daily, and a numberof those are quality bucks, including some thatwould qualify as trophies according to Safari ClubInternational standards. Some hunters have returnedfor twenty consecutive years.

24

COLORADO: SMALLER, MORE EXPENSIVE

Colorado’s program was patterned after California’sprogram and like California’s began with a pilot,which became permanent in 1989. Colorado’s formalname, Ranching for Wildlife, has become the genericdescription of these programs.

The landowner is eligible for transferable game tags,extended seasons, and flexible bag limits. As inCalifornia, the landowner must produce a wildlifemanagement plan that includes proposed harvestlevels and a schedule of habitat improvements.

A participating landowner pays the same price fortags as does a hunter purchasing a tag from the state(in 1998, $250 and $150 for nonresident elk and deerpermits respectively; $30 and $20 for resident per-mits). The landowner can use the permits as he or shesees fit (Colorado Wildlife Commission 1993). Mostmarket them, but one coal company gives them toemployees as a perquisite.

Prices for mule deer and antelope hunts tend to behigher than in California. Across fifteen ranches in theprogram, a five-day guided mule deer hunt averagesapproximately $3,750, and a five-day guided antelopehunt runs around $3,000. A five-day guided bull elkhunt costs from $4,000 to $6,000 on most ranches.15

At the upper end of the price scale is Crazy FrenchRanch. At most, four hunters are allowed on the40,000-acre ranch at one time. This region of highmesas and 300 days of sunshine per year has manytrophy animals. The price of trophy hunts can rangefrom $3,200 for antelope to $17,500 plus a trophy feeif the hunter shoots a trophy elk.16

25

Three factors contribute to Colorado’s higher prices.

• Colorado limits the number of ranches allowed inthe program to thirty. (Only twenty-four are cur-rently enrolled, but the cap was just recently raisedfrom twenty-four.) Although the limit has neverled to a denial of entry into the program, it maydiscourage ranchers with lower-priced hunts fromapplying.

• To be considered for the program, a property mustconsist of at least 12,000 contiguous acres.17

While smaller adjacent ranches can join together,not all suitable ranches have adjoining landownersinterested in and capable of joining. Thus, theacreage limitation reduces the number of potentialsuppliers and may lead to higher prices.

• Colorado requires landowners to provide accessat no charge to a limited number of hunterswhose names are drawn by lottery.18 The require-ment to provide access for nonpaying huntersreduces political opposition, but it raises thelandowner’s cost of operation and probably leadsto higher charges for those willing to pay to hunt.It also reduces landowners’ freedom to decidewho can hunt and may eliminate potential en-trants who value this freedom highly.

Removing the limit on the number of participatingranches and the minimum acreage could bring inranches with more affordable hunts. If landowners arerequired to take some free-access hunters, finding away to compensate them for the additional costswould also help reduce prices for paying hunters.

26

Opening the program to more landowners mightchange the attitude of disgruntled landowners whocovet more flexible regulations. Ron Tipping, aColorado landowner, points out that ranches outsidethe program are limited to twenty-six days of elkhunting, while ranches in the program have an elkseason that can last ninety days.19 The longer seasonallows landowners to hold hunts before and after thegeneral elk season, ensuring prime hunting condi-tions. Furthermore, if landowners don’t allowhunting during the general season, their propertybecomes a safety zone for elk. Says Tipping: “Theyallow them to hunt when others can’t, and then theyquit hunting when others can” (Stalling 1999, 71).

The program has demonstrated an ability to grow.Starting with six ranches in 1989, the program now

includes twenty-four ranches encom-passing over 900,000 acres.20 Ranchesrange in size from 10,000 acres to the137,000-acre Kim Wildlife RanchingArea. They offer public hunting for someor all of the following species: elk, deer,

antelope, black bear, and turkey. Elk and deer are themost widely offered, followed by antelope.

A study of thirteen participating ranches found thatall were carrying out wildlife management practicessuch as grazing management, game counting,managing population structure, and recordingharvest statistics (Davis 1995, 116–18). A majorityof the landowners were providing supplementalforage, restoring streams, distributing mineral salt,developing new water sources, and controllingpoaching. “They’ve taken a real ecosystem ap-proach,” says John Seidel, former Statewide Coordi-

“They’ve taken areal ecosystem

approach,” says aformer Colorado

official.

27

nator of Ranching for Wildlife in Colorado(quoted in Stalling 1999). The program also hasreduced some of the state’s costs of compensatinglandowners for game damage (Arha 1997, 107).

There is still room for improvement. According toa 1997 study, the Department of Wildlife has beenlax in confirming that ranches are complying withthe agreed-upon plan (Arha 1997, 107–108). Butthe state may be becoming more vigilant. Thedepartment told three ranches that they had tocomply with the plan or the contract would beterminated. Two remain on probation (Stalling1999, 70) and one was eliminated.

The state is exploring modified programs forlandowners with as few as 160 acres. Legislationauthorizing such programs died in 1998. Accordingto a state official, legislators are reluctant to providelandowner licenses without requiring habitat man-agement plans. State officials doubt that there issufficient agency personnel to adequately adminis-ter an expanded program.

UTAH: FEWER DEMANDS ON LANDOWNERS

Although nearly three-quarters of Utah is publicland, big game populations—deer, elk, antelope,and moose—depend on private land (Larson andBunnel 1989). In 1990, Utah’s Wildlife Boardapproved a three-year pilot program known asCooperative Wildlife Management Units formanaging big game species on private lands. In1994, it became law.

28

As in California and Colorado, landowners in theprogram are allowed longer hunting seasons, trans-ferable game tags, and flexible bag limits. Themost attractive feature of the program appears tobe the ability to schedule hunts outside the state’srelatively short big game hunting season. Rifleseasons for mule deer and elk last at most twoweeks in Utah and are held in mid-October. Par-

ticipants in the program, however, canschedule hunts for mule deer and elkbetween September 1 and October 31.

Landowners who want to participatemust work with state biologists toprepare an application for the Utah

Wildlife Board, which can approve or deny it. Anapplication contains information on the size, loca-tion, and ownership of the land proposed for enroll-ment, the big game species to be managed, thenumber of requested permits, and a managementplan. Landowners whose applications are acceptedreceive a certificate of registration that definesmanagement guidelines. The certificate costs $150.No limit has been placed on the number of units.

Unlike California and Colorado, Utah does notrequire a schedule of habitat improvements. How-ever, the state is considering rewarding landownerswho specify habitat improvements by approvingplans for a four- to five-year period instead of oneyear.21 Even without such requirements, more than11,500 acres were seeded in native vegetation in1996 (Messmer et al. 1998, 329). Most participat-ing landowners also promise to monitor habitatconditions and wildlife populations (Messmer et al.1998, 329).

More than11,500 acres in

Utah were seeded innative vegetation toattract and support

wild animals.

29

A property must be at least 10,000 acres in size, arequirement similar to Colorado’s. Landowners withadjacent tracts can form one management unit toqualify, and the Utah Wildlife Board may waive theminimum-size rule to achieve an objective such asincreasing big game populations for a long period ona specific tract of land. The number of units enrolledin the program has gone up steadily from fewer thanthirty in 1993 to seventy-one in 1999.22 In 1997, thesixty-six cooperative units enrolled in the programtotaled over one million acres.23

As in Colorado, a portion of the hunting permitsallocated to landowners must be given to nonpayinghunters, with a choice of options for allocating thesepermits between paying and nonpaying hunters.24

Paying hunters can obtain permits directly fromlandowners or from outfitters who purchase permitsfrom landowners. Free-access hunters take theirchances in Utah’s big game drawing. (In this draw-ing, residents may apply for bucks and bulls andantlerless permits; nonresidents are restricted toantlerless permits.)

The program includes ranches that are nationallyrenowned for the quality of hunting they offer. The201,000-acre Deseret Ranch has become a showcasefor integrating wildlife with a cattle operation. Feehunting generates from 25 to 50 percent of theranch’s net income each year, depending on the priceof cattle. The ranch today supports 2,000 elk; in 1976,elk numbered only 350. Other animals include 5,000mule deer, 500 antelope, and between fifty and onehundred moose. Nongame species have also in-creased. Surveys show that there are growing num-bers of squirrels, jack rabbits, beavers, mink, moun-

30

tain lions, and black bears. Birds in residence includebald eagles, golden eagles, cormorants, egrets, terns,and sage grouse (Anderson and Leal 1997, 80–81).

The 55,000-acre Alton unit is in one of the best muledeer areas in the country, the famed Paunsaguntregion of southwestern Utah. For this unit, thirty-six

permits are allocated for fee-accesshunters and five permits for public-lotteryhunters. One landowner in the Alton unitnotes that there is a better than 80 percentchance of harvesting a buck with a rackspread measuring more than 28 inches.25

An outfitter who specializes in these hunts offers asix-day mule deer hunt for $9,000.26 The priceincludes one-on-one guiding, cabin lodging andmeals, and a chance for a trophy buck.

Not all mule deer hunts are this expensive, says Utahhunting consultant Rich LaRocco (quoted in Causey1998). One of the Manti Mountain ranches offers afully guided mule deer hunt for $2,000 (minus $500 ifthe hunter does not get a shooting opportunity). AnEast Canyon ranch charges $4,000 for a bull elk huntthat has a 75 percent success rate, mostly for animalswith between four-point and small six-point racks (asmeasured by western count). Although this fee issubstantial, LaRocco notes that it is not much morethan the price hunters pay for many backcountrypublic-land elk hunts led by outfitters, which have asuccess rate of between 20 and 50 percent.

Statistics gathered by the Utah Division of WildlifeResources show the following average fees perclient: For buck deer hunts, the average is $3,172;for bull elk, $4,125; for bull moose, $5,438; and for

Landownersand hunters alike

have expressed highsatisfaction withUtah’s program.

31

buck antelope, $1,692.27 However, as we sawearlier, one hunting club is already bringing downthe fees for trophy hunts by allowing members tolease lands in the program without guides.

Landowners and hunters alike have expressed highsatisfaction with the program.28 A 1994 survey ofUtah participants (Messmer et al. 1998, 328–29)found that both fee-access and free-access hunters(those who obtained access by lottery) cited “lesshunting pressure,” “less hunter crowding,” and a“chance for quality hunt” as primary reasons forparticipating. They differed in what they considereda quality hunt, however. Nearly half the fee-accesshunters wanted “greater trophy potential,” whilenearly two-thirds of the public hunters wanted a“greater chance at harvesting an animal.”

The program appears to be satisfying landownersand hunters. And, according to agency officials, theprogram has also reduced the costs of compensatinglandowners for damage from game (Messmer et al.1998, 330).

NEW MEXICO: BUILDING ON THE PAST

Although California was the first state to instituteranching for wildlife, New Mexico’s program forencouraging hunting on private land has a muchlonger history. The Land Owner Sign-up System(LOSS)29 illustrates the benefits that come fromallowing private landowners flexibility in gamemanagement. However, it may also illustrate thelimitations when a customized management plan isnot part of the program.

32

The history begins with the role that some privatelandowners played in helping to reintroduce elk inNew Mexico early in the twentieth century. Inrecognition of these efforts, the state designatedseveral ranches as “Class A Parks.” These rancherscould “set their own bag limits, seasons and hunternumbers on their entire ranch” (Arha 1997, 62). Innearly every instance wildlife populations grew as aresult (Arha 1997, 62).

As elk expanded their range beyond these ranches,demand to hunt elk increased, and in 1933 the statebegan requiring hunters to have a state license tohunt elk on land outside Class A Parks, whetherpublic or private. In 1937, Class A landowners wererequired to obtain elk-license “authorizations” fortheir hunters. Each authorization entitles the holderto purchase an additional elk hunting license goodonly for that property.

Before 1988, there was no set policy for determiningwho would get authorizations or how many would beallowed on each ranch. Authorizations spread to otherlandowners through a process of “barter, negotiation,and abuse,” according to one commentator (Arha1997, 63). In response, the state developed a formulafor determining the number of authorizations eachlandowner is allowed. The formula takes into accountelk density in the region and the number of acresowned by the landowner within occupied elk habitat.

To participate, a landowner must allow access to anumber of hunters (selected by lottery) who hunt forfree. The percentage of licenses allocated to thelandowners and to the public hunters is based on anaerial survey and an estimate of how many animals

33

the department believes will be taken on public landand how many on private land in the region.

Authorizations for antelope, the other species inLOSS, are determined by spring population surveysfrom the air and by landowner acreage. In pastyears, about one antelope permit has been issued per1,000 acres, although due to drought and a lownumber of fawns, the number may be one per 1,500or 2,000 acres in 1999.30 As with the elk program,ranches must provide access to a set number ofpublic hunters, based on an aerial survey.

New Mexico’s program does not require the land-owner to develop a wildlife managementplan. As long as elk or antelope inhabitthe land, a property owner can obtainauthorizations. While the program doesnot require that a property be a minimumsize, landowners with properties greaterthan 10,000 acres may get longer hunting

seasons. However, very few ranches use this option.31

In 1997, 1,442 landowners enrolled in the elk pro-gram for a total of more than 3.5 million acres. Theranches ranged in size from the nearly 600,000-acreVermejo Park Ranch to a mere five acres. Addingranches that receive antelope authorizations, thenumber of private acres enrolled in the program totalsabout eight million (Arha 1997, 68), making it by farthe most extensive ranching for wildlife program.

While five-day quality elk hunts are typicallypriced at around $4,000, Jack Diamond of BeaverOutfitters offers such a hunt for $2,700 on his 100-square-mile working cattle ranch. Diamond and his

At about eightmillion acres,New Mexico’sranching forwildlife is the

nation’s largest.

34

associate Ken Swaim encourage their clients totake only mature, branch-antlered bulls that score aminimum of 275 Boone and Crockett points. Eachyear three to five bulls are taken that exceed 350Boone and Crockett points (Stapleton 1998).

As for antelope, outfitted hunts for nontrophy buckscan be found for $1,750 (guided) and $750 (un-guided), reports Rich LaRocco of Associated Hunt-ing Consultants, who says they have a hunter suc-cess rate of 100 percent. LaRocco books trophyhunts as well. Most range from $2,250 to $3,000,but he recently found an outfitter who offers a$1,750 guided trophy hunt for antelope on privateland (Edvalson 1997). On the last three trophyhunts, hunters averaged just over 82, 81, and 80Boone and Crockett points for the bucks taken. Ascore of 82 qualifies a buck for Boone and Crockettdesignation (Edvalson 1997).

Available figures suggest that hunting prices varywidely. Ranchers appear to be responding to demand

TABLE 3: PRICES FOR HUNTS IN NEW MEXICO

(1995)

Source: Wright (1997).

SpeciesAverage

Price Price Range

Bull Elk $ 1,907 $250 to $7,500

Buck PronghornAntelope

$ 869 $100 to $3,000

Deer $ 1,092 $15 to $4,000

35

with an array of choices, as indicated in table 3.For state wildlife officials, the LOSS program hasboth strengths and weaknesses. On the positive side,state officials say that they are better able to managegame populations, particularly in areas dominated byprivate land. In addition, LOSS increases licenserevenue. Hunters who don’t win a permit through apublic drawing now have an alternative way to obtaina tag, landowner authorization. Authorization salesalso enable landowners to recover the costs of gamedamage without draining the department’s budgetthrough damage compensation programs.

However, allocating authorizations to landownerson the basis of animal populations alone discouragesranch-specific management. This may explain whyexcess elk populations are still causing damage inthe northeastern part of the state. The formulafunnels many authorizations to a few large ranchesbut few authorizations to smaller ranches that maybe suffering damage from game (Arha 1997, 69).Nor does the formula take into account the qualityof habitat a landowner offers (Arha 1997, 70).

The four states discussed above represent the majorranching for wildlife programs. Several other stateshave less-developed programs that provide a portionof the benefits found in the states discussed so far.

OKLAHOMA: DEER MANAGEMENT

Oklahoma provides landowners with transferablehunting permits for antlerless deer. Established in

FLEDGLING STATE PROGRAMS

36

1992, the Deer Management Assistance Programdetermines the number of permits based on a surveyof the animals on the property, the size of the prop-erty, the property’s deer-carrying capacity, and thelandowner’s management objectives. The landownermay want to reduce game damage, produce trophydeer, or produce as many deer for hunting as pos-sible. The state also provides technical assistance toparticipating landowners.

The landowner is free to charge hunters for accessand decide who receives the permits. They are goodfor an antlerless deer on any day of the primitive-firearms or deer-gun season (Arha 1997, 135).

To join, a property must be at least 1,000 contiguousacres. About seventy-five owners enrolled morethan 250,000 acres in the program in 1998,32 thefirst year that the program allowed a seven-dayperiod for hunting does after the regular seasonended. According to Jerry Shaw of the OklahomaDepartment of Wildlife Conservation, “the land-owners really like the fact that they have seven daysmore to hunt the does. Then, they can let the huntersconcentrate on the bucks during the regular seasonand worry about getting the does after.”33 Theprogram appears to foster mature game. Shaw says,“If they follow our recommendations, we see prettydrastic improvements in the herd. The propertieswilling to put in the time do real well.”

Outside this program, the state allows landownerswho are having a crop depredation problem toharvest deer out of season. The Department ofWildlife Conservation can authorize shoot-to-killpermits, which the landowner can assign to others.

37

These have been used to keep deer from damagingorchards and crops but, according to Shaw, are a lastresort. During hunting season, the landowner andhis or her immediate family do not need a huntinglicense to hunt on their own land, but they mustpurchase deer tags from the state.

WASHINGTON: EXAMPLES STILL RARE

Washington’s Private Lands Wildlife ManagementArea program is still rudimentary. Initiated as a pilotprogram in 1992, it was renewed for another fiveyears in 1997.34 Landowners are allowed longerhunting seasons and transferable hunting permits inreturn for making habitat improvements and achiev-ing specific wildlife management objectives. How-ever, only three properties have joined the pro-gram—two commercial forests and an agricultural

cooperative unit composed of abouttwenty landowners—for a total acreageof 200,000 acres.

A landowner’s property must be at least5,000 acres, and the management plan

must be approved by the Washington Fish andWildlife Commission. Landowners must allowaccess to some hunters who pay, at most, small dailycharges for access.

Champion Pacific Timberlands joined the program tocontrol its deer and elk population, encourage betterrelations with local residents, and obtain revenuefrom hunting (Eskow 1998). At Kapowsin Tree Farmon the western boundary of Mount Rainier NationalPark, Champion charges a daily fee to hunt buck

So far, onlythree properties

have joinedWashington’s

program.

38

blacktail deer during the regular hunting seasonand sells raffle tickets for special blacktail huntingopportunities beyond the regular season. Fifty-onepermits were issued through the raffle for 1998.

Although the original goal with elk was to keep thenumbers below carrying capacity, the company iscurrently trying to build up its male elk population,which declined after 1992 due to overharvesting andpoaching. The company is seeding more forage(such as orchard and timothy grass) and conductingcontrolled elk hunts to increase the ratio of bulls.According to Champion’s 1998 annual report on theprogram, elk numbers are starting to improve(Eskow 1998, 5).

Champion holds a raffle for its annual Quality BullRaffle Hunt, which allows a few public hunters tohunt bull elk on Kapowsin for two weeks after theregular season. In 1998, a raffle ticket cost $10($15 in 1999), and 2,800 tickets were sold.35

Hunters with winning tickets need only pay for alicense from the state and they are ready to hunt(Eskow 1998, 5).

David Stevens, a wheat farm owner, heads the WilsonCreek private management area, a cooperative ofabout twenty landowners located in Washington’sGrant County. Stevens has about fifty permits forhunting mule deer bucks, which he may sell or giveaway. Outside the management area, the mule deerseason is nine days; inside, it is three months.

Last year, Stevens sold six permits, gave twenty away(many to landowners in the cooperative), and did notuse the other twenty-four. For those he sold, he

39

received about $6,000 a permit.36 Hunters werewilling to pay Stevens that amount because hisproperty has trophy bucks. Through the state lottery,the state provides 100 doe permits for one-day, free-access hunts on Wilson Creek from September 1 toDecember 31. Hunters can also obtain a few free-access buck permits through the lottery.

The deer population on the Wilson Creek areaincreased from 1,100 to 1,300 between 1992 and1998. As part of his management plan, Stevens hascreated ten forage plots (which cost him approxi-

mately $30,000 a year in electricity tooperate sprinklers). He has planted corn,alfalfa, and sunflowers. Additionally, heholds some of his acres out of wheatproduction to maintain native habitat fordeer. He eliminated livestock grazing,

developed springs and water holes, and plantedshrubs and trees for food and cover. In addition tomule deer, pheasants and waterfowl such as mal-lards and geese benefit.

Stevens and the other landowners enjoy wildlife andmight well make improvements without the program.However, they appreciate the fact that the program’sextra revenues offset some of the costs.

While these two Washington examples suggest thatthe program can work well for landowners andhunters, the program is not growing. Many landown-ers do not even know the program exists, probablybecause Washington’s Department of Fish andWildlife chooses not to publicize it. The departmentis apparently responding to objections by sportsmenconvinced that the program caters to the rich.37

David Stevenshas planted corn,

alfalfa, and sunflow-ers to ensure food

for deer.

40

NEVADA: SOME TRANSFERABLE TAGS

In Nevada, a landowner experiencing damage fromdeer or antelope can receive one to twelve tags tohunt them through the Mule Deer and AntelopeLandowner Damage Compensation Tag program,which began in 1991. The Nevada Division ofWildlife surveys the property and issues one tag forevery fifty animals causing damage. A landownermay sell these tags to hunters. In 1997, the stateissued a total of ninety-one deer tags and ten ante-lope tags under the program.

In essence, these are transferable hunting permits.One landowner’s wife interviewed in U.S. HuntingReport said her husband sold all of the tags he wasissued for $2,500 each (Gilchrist 1997). Some huntershave paid more than $6,000, according to a Divisionof Wildlife official.38 Because the permits are tied togame damage and not to creating incentives for morehabitat or more hunting opportunities, this is notformally a ranching for wildlife program. It could be,however, if the program allowed longer seasons andguaranteed hunting permits for landowners whoincrease habitat and deer and antelope numbers.

Nevada’s newest management approach, the ElkIncentive Tag program, is similar to New Mexico’sLOSS program. Expected to be operational in1999, the program will issue transferable elk tagsto a landowner in order to encourage privatestewardship of elk. The number is based largely onthe number of elk on the property. The only otherway to get an elk permit in Nevada is by lottery, solandowner-issued elk permits for prime huntingareas are in high demand.

41

State officials also see this program as a cheaperway to deal with heavy depredation from elk. Whenlandowners experience damage from game, theymay be compensated by the state, emergency depre-dation hunts may be authorized, self-harvests maybe allowed, or state agency personnel may conducthunts. The Elk Incentive Tag Program is an alterna-tive that turns a liability into an asset.

OREGON: STARTING SMALL

In 1982, Oregon began providing a number ofnontransferable elk and deer tags to landowners.These tags were good only for the landowner andimmediate family members. In 1995, the stateexpanded this Landowner Preference program toallow a landowner to transfer one-third of his or herantlered tags and all antlerless tags to nonfamilymembers. (Otherwise in Oregon, tags for elk anddeer are allocated by public drawing.)

The number of permits issued to a landowner isextremely limited and strictly tied to acreage. Forproperty from 40 to 1,199 acres in size, landownerscan receive two antlered deer tags and two antleredelk tags,39 but only one is transferable. As acreageincreases, the landowner receives additional tags,but acreage must reach 10,000 before a second tag istransferable. The number of tags can rise to ten perspecies at most, which requires a minimum of160,000 acres. With this acreage, three landowners’tags can be transferred.

If the landowner actively manages habitat for wild-life, two more tags can be acquired, and two addi-

42

tional tags can be acquired for providing publicaccess. However, these additional tags are nontrans-ferable and only allow hunting of antlerless animals.

We have now reviewed all ranching for wildlifeprograms, including the four fledgling programs.While the remaining western states (other thanTexas) have moved even less in the direction ofranching for wildlife, some have laid a foundationthat could become ranching for wildlife.

Over the last twenty years, state wildlife agencieshave tried to encourage landowners to accept hunt-ing and nurture wildlife. Some states pay landown-ers to protect habitat, some pay them to open theirland to hunting, and some pay landowners to offsetthe costs of game damage. Whether these programswill develop into ranching for wildlife dependslargely on political factors and on whether thebenefits of ranching for wildlife are understood.

ARIZONA

The state’s wildlife agency does little with privatelandowners, possibly because public lands (state andfederal) represent 75 percent of the state’s totalacreage. However, the state recognizes the fact thatits public land does not have enough mature game tosatisfy hunters and is trying to address the demandfor trophy hunting. To allow bull elk to grow totrophy size, the state is restricting the number ofpermits for hunting mature elk in designated areas.

OTHER PROGRAMS

43

The permits are available by lottery. However, thepaperwork for applying is cumbersome and thechances of getting a permit are only 10 percent(Pearce 1997).

The state may be responding to the impressivegains made by the White Mountain Apache, whorevolutionized elk hunting on the Fort Apachereservation in east-central Arizona. In 1977, thetribe took over game management on the reserva-

tion. To build mature populations, thetribe restricted hunting for trophy elk, atfirst issuing only twelve trophy elkpermits for the entire 1.6 million-acrereservation. The tribe also reduced itslivestock grazing and limited logging

on the reservation. The program worked; in 1995,sixty-six hunters paid $12,000 each for a six-daytrophy hunt. The tribe also offers less expensivehunts (Anderson and Leal 1997, 150–52).

The state’s efforts to improve habitat on privatelands rest with the state’s Stewardship Program,which provides technical assistance to landownerswho improve their habitat as well as cost-sharing inthe form of labor and materials purchased throughthe state procurement process. As demand for biggame grows, this program could serve as a founda-tion for ranching for wildlife.

IDAHO

About two-thirds of Idaho’s land base is owned bythe state or by the federal government. As else-where, hunting on public lands is declining in quality

The WhiteMountain Apacherevolutionized elkhunting in east-central Arizona.

44

due to habitat loss and increasing hunting pressure.Because some of the best hunting is found on privatelands, the state has undertaken a few programs thatcould become vehicles for landowner incentiveprograms. For example, the state issues nontransfer-able elk and deer tags to landowners. It also providessome cost-sharing and technical assistance for invest-ments in habitat improvement and tries to increasepublic access to quality habitat through conservationeasements and direct purchases.

KANSAS

The state indirectly offers incentives for landownersto improve habitat through Walk-In Hunting Areas.Under this program, the state leases access forpublic hunters from private landowners, payinghigher per-acre prices to landowners with qualityhabitat. In addition, the state provides cost sharingand free technical assistance to landowners whowant to improve habitat.

The program is primarily for upland birds likepheasant, but it also attempts to address habitat forwhite-tailed deer. It is popular among hunters, but asits popularity grows so does the need to managehunters and to tailor harvest levels to specific areas.If the Walk-In Hunting Areas program is to do this,it must become more like ranching for wildlife.

MONTANA

Ranching for wildlife bills have been introducedover the last ten years but have failed to pass the

45

state legislature, largely due to opposition from asmall number of vocal hunters, including the Mon-tana Wildlife Federation. However, fee hunting isemerging in the state. A 1996 study by ErikSwensson (1996) reported that 12 percent of land-owners surveyed across the state offered hunting fora fee. This compares with surveys in the early 1980sreporting that only 4 percent of the landownersoffered fee hunting (Irby et al. 1997, 327).

The state’s Block Management program, establishedin 1992, compensates landowners who accept hunters

without charge. Funding comes from thesale of a limited number of licenses tononresident hunters at market prices. Thelandowner’s payment rises with thenumber of hunters using the propertyduring the course of the hunting season.Thus, under this reward system, a land-owner is paid more if the property isoverrun with hunters, and the program

offers no incentive for improving habitat.

The Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Commissionis considering Gameshare, which would offerlandowners transferable big game licenses (Henckel1998) that have been set aside for nonresidents. Inreturn, landowners would be required to providepublic hunting equivalent to what their payingclients receive. Missing in this approach, however,are incentives for creating more habitat for wildlife.Also, the requirement to bring in nonpaying huntersmight reduce landowners’ interest in the program.

Two groups oppose Gameshare. Some landowners,confused about the program, think that the public

Unfortunately,the Block

Managementprogram rewards

landownerswhose property

is overrunwith hunters.

46

access requirement constitutes a “taking” of landwithout compensation. This is a mistake, since entryinto the program is strictly voluntary, althoughjoining the program does limit landowners’ abilityto select hunters. Outfitters oppose Gameshare onthe grounds that it would hurt their business.Outfitters currently have an exclusive right to thelicenses for out-of-state hunters that are not allo-cated by lottery.

SOUTH DAKOTA

South Dakota provides nontransferable deer tags tolandowners and their immediate families. The statealso leases private land to provide more publicaccess and limits the landowner’s liability fromrecreational use of his or her land. If demand forquality hunts increases, these might be the basis ofranching for wildlife.

WYOMING

A fierce debate has raged in the state over a proposalto provide landowner-sponsored hunting tags for elk,deer, and antelope. These would go to landownerswho allow some instate hunters access to their landswithout charge (Krumm 1998). Currently, as inIdaho and South Dakota, the state issues landownersbig game tags that only they can use on their land.The state also provides technical assistance and costsharing for landowners who improve habitat bydeveloping riparian areas, planting food plots, andtaking other steps. The state also leases privateland to provide hunting access for public hunters.

47

REMAINING WESTERN STATES: VERY LITTLE

The remaining western states have little or nothingin the way of incentive programs for landowners.With two-thirds of its land under federal owner-ship, Alaska does not have any habitat improve-ment programs for private lands. Nebraska offers acost-sharing program for landowners who improvehabitat, and the state will pay landowners whoprovide hunters access without charge. NorthDakota, too, offers a cost-sharing program forlandowners who improve habitat and spends someof the revenues from hunting licenses to leaseprivate land.

Political opposition makes initiating ranching forwildlife programs by no means easy. Consider that:

• A measure to allow ranching for wildlife failedtwice in the California legislature. It finallypassed in 1983 after a successful pilot program(Arha 1994, 4).

• The Colorado and Utah programs faced stiffopposition until they allowed some options forfree-access hunting.

• A segment of the sportsmen in Montana, Idaho,and Wyoming is adamantly opposed to theprogram. As the quality of hunting deteriorateson public lands, however, more hunters willpush for access to the quality habitat availableon private lands. Yet access programs like

THE FUTURE OF RANCHING FOR WILDLIFE

48

Montana’s Block Management (which payslandowners for providing public access) are notstructured to improve habitat or address thedemand for high-quality hunting.

And, as we have seen, some ranching for wildlifeprograms are only partial programs.

• Nevada has ranching for wildlife for elk, but notfor deer or antelope.

• Oregon’s modest program, which gives land-owners a few transferable elk and deer tags,could be expanded by giving more tags tolandowners who improve habitat and providehunting opportunities.

• Washington has yet to market its program tolandowners or to publicize the benefits.

Yet these programs could expand, and most westernstates have rudimentary state-sponsored activitiesthat could lead to ranching for wildlife in the future.For example, Idaho, Wyoming, and South Dakotaissue nontransferable tags to landowners underspecial conditions.

ADVICE FOR STARTING A PROGRAM

It is clear that proponents of ranching for wildlifeface great challenges. Yet the difficulties are by nomeans insurmountable. For individuals who want toencourage such programs, here are some ideas.

1. Identify existing landowner programs.

49

Some states offer big game licenses to landown-ers and their immediate families to stop gamedamage or as an alternative to obtaining big gametags through a lottery. If these licenses were madetransferable and if the number of licenses werelinked to improvements in habitat and huntingmanagement, a ranching for wildlife programwould have been started. The next logical step isto add extended seasons and landowner manage-ment plans.

2. Start a pilot program.

A handful of ranches should be selected to try outranching for wildlife. Both fee hunters and asample of public hunters selected by lottery couldbe allowed to hunt on these ranches. Wildlifemanagers, hunters, and landowners could thenevaluate the program and come up with improve-ments. California, Utah, and Colorado initiatedpilot programs and their success gave lawmakersthe confidence to create permanent programs.

3. Allow some hunters to experience the programwithout charge.

To overcome protests from hunters who opposefee hunting, most ranching for wildlife programsprovide limited opportunities for nonpayinghunters, who are usually selected by lottery. Suchguarantees address concerns that only the wealthywill gain access to high-quality hunting. OnDeseret Ranch in Utah, the state program hasdramatically increased the number of publichunters. Before the program, paying huntersoutnumbered nonpayers 4 to 1; that ratio has been

50

reversed. (While California does not require suchfree access, it does provide extended seasons onpublic lands in areas where longer seasons areoffered on ranching for wildlife lands.)

The problem with requiring participants to acceptnonpaying hunters is that it takes away landown-ers’ choice about whom they will allow on theirland, and it may lead to higher prices. One way toaddress higher prices is to borrow a concept fromMontana’s Block Management program. The statecould pay landowners to accept nonpaying hunters.Funds could be raised from nonresident licensesales as well as from raffles for such hunts.

4. Educate sportsmen.

It is important to let sportsmen know that ranch-ing for wildlife does not privatize wildlife. Thestate remains in charge of wildlife, and theprograms give the state more influence andcontrol over animals than it had previously. Theprograms open up land to hunters that previouslywas closed. Sportsmen should be informed of thewide range of prices for hunting available in moststates with these programs.

Sportsmen should also become aware that bettermanagement on private lands often benefitsadjacent public lands. When animals are abun-dant on private land, some are bound to roam,many onto public land. Deseret’s Rick Danvir, forexample, claims that only one out of three maturebull elk growing up on Deseret is taken onDeseret property. The rest are hunted on publicand private land nearby.40

51

5. Encourage or require cooperative management plans.

Ranching for wildlife will be more acceptable tostate wildlife officials if it includes a state-approved wildlife management plan developed byeach participating landowner. State wildlifebiologists can help landowners take a census,plan habitat improvements, and determine har-vest numbers. Involvement by state biologists onpreviously off-limits private lands should be amajor selling point to state officials, whosesupport is critical.

6. Show how the program can save money for the state.

State agencies are expected to monitor wildlife,conduct research, and enforce regulations. Afterthese costly demands are made on their budgets,there is little funding left to purchase land oreasements to protect habitat. Ranching for wildlifeencourages landowners to create their own habitatimprovements without draining agency funds.

Ranching for wildlife is also an alternative togame damage compensation programs. Throughbetter control of game, ranching for wildlifereduces game damage. In addition, because themarketplace compensates landowners through feehunting, ranching for wildlife leads to greatertolerance of depredation. Indeed, landownersoften deliberately provide forage for animals.Ranching for wildlife also reduces the need forcost-sharing programs in which the state agencypays landowners to improve habitat. All these

52

savings add up to an important selling point towildlife officials.

7. Point to the success of other programs.

California, Colorado, and several other stateshave in essence created pilot programs for statesthat have not yet begun programs. The knowl-edge that it has been done before—and worked—should allay some fears.

8. Make a clear distinction between privately runfee hunting and ranching for wildlife.

Ranching for wildlife did not create fee hunting.Fee hunting entered the marketplace long beforeranching for wildlife emerged, reflecting thegreater demand for quality hunts and the shrinkingsupply of good hunting on public lands. Ranchingfor wildlife builds on fee hunting by enabling statewildlife managers to influence landowner deci-sions about wildlife habitat and hunter access.

ADVICE FOR CONTINUED SUCCESS

Once a ranching for wildlife program has begun, itsbenefits must be explained and its successes docu-mented. The following suggestions will strengthenand expand a fledgling program.

1. Market ranching for wildlife to sportsmen andlandowners.

As programs grow, privately gathered informationabout available ranching for wildlife programs

53

should increase as well. The Texas WildlifeAssociation puts out an annually revised directory(for $13) listing hundreds of fee-hunting ranches inthe state (Hicks 1999). U.S. Hunting Report (seeappendix C) is providing hunters with extensiveinformation about hunting prices and services.Such information can help proponents, includingstate officials, defend the program to its critics.State agencies can also increase the flow ofinformation between hunters and landownerssince they are a natural contact point for hunterswho may be interested in ranching for wildlife.

2. Minimize bureaucracy.

Any requirements for landowner entry willrequire some regulation and monitoring. How-ever, the process must be straightforward orpotential entrants will be dissuaded from apply-ing (Arha 1994). Putting a cap on the number ofranches in the program, as Colorado does, limitsthe provision of a full array of prices and servicesfor hunters. A high minimum acreage can alsoreduce the supply by making entry difficult.According to E. Lee Fitzhugh (1989, 55), “Tomotivate landowners, the program must bepositive, free from excessive paper work, andeasy for them to market.”

3. Continue education.

It is important to educate the hunting andnonhunting public about the value of ranchingfor wildlife. Studies showing habitat improve-ment, better quality of wildlife, and huntersatisfaction will help the program thrive. Unfor-

54

tunately, surveys and dissemination of informa-tion are often one of the first things cut fromstate wildlife budgets. New Mexico, for ex-ample, planned to survey hunters about itsprogram, but funding ran out.

4. Form a trade association.

A landowners’ trade association offers numer-ous benefits (Fitzhugh 1989) that will encouragelandowners to participate in the program. Suchan association can help landowners obtain insur-ance, share marketing ideas, gather statistics,improve public education, procure informationabout what hunters want, and speak with onevoice politically. Over time, the trade associationcould become a “brand name” indicating thatparticipating landowners meet certain huntingand habitat standards.

5. Hunters themselves can provide low-cost hunt-ing through ranching for wildlife.

Some hunts are expensive because they includeoutfitting services. Yet many hunters do notneed a guide and should be able to find less-expensive hunts. The Great Western HuntingClub, to be financed by a one-time membershipfee and annual dues, plans to book unguidedhunts for members on private lands throughoutthe West. These include ranching for wildlifelands (Causey 1999b).

55

Although no program is perfect, ranching for wild-life offers many benefits. For landowners, it pro-vides ways to realize higher returns from wildlifewhile reducing conflicts with agriculture and live-stock grazing. It allows wildlife agency personnel anopportunity to affect wildlife management onprivate lands and reduce reliance on costly landacquisition, easements, and game depredationprograms. For both fee- and free-access hunters, itoffers more land with quality hunting. More broadly,ranching for wildlife helps achieve a goal that allAmericans want—lands flowing with clean streams,enriched with natural vegetation, and full of free-roaming wild animals.

This handbook has attempted to give advocates ofranching for wildlife information that they can useto extend the benefits of ranching for wildlifethroughout the West. We believe that ranching forwildlife is an idea whose time has come.

1. Telephone conversation with rancher Jarrell Massey, Mercer,Colorado, 22 February 1999.

2. In 1995, sixty-nine elk hunters took sixty-eight bull elk andtwenty-four mule deer hunters took twenty-three bucks over aninety-day season. See Fears (1996).

3. Typically, there is a two-week break from hunting some timebetween 1 September and 31 October. The longer season ispossible because the landowner has agreed to a specific numberof animals that can be taken.

4. The study provides a way to estimate the additional valuehunters place on hunting on ranching for wildlife lands versusother lands. Based on data from the study, the authors concludedthat hunters are willing to pay a much higher premium for alicense to hunt elk on ranching for wildlife lands than for alicense to hunt elk on other lands (Buschena, Anderson, andLeonard 1998).

5. Telephone conservation with Rick Danvir, Deseret Ranch,

CONCLUSION

NOTES

56

Woodruff, UT, 15 March 1999.6. Telephone conversation with Bill Burrows, Burrows Ranch,

Tehama County, California, 9 February 1999.7. Status of the CWMU (Cooperative Wildlife Management Units)

program summary from Wes Shields, Nature/Business Coordina-tor, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, 7 April1999, by fax.

8. Telephone conversation with John Seidel, Ranching for WildlifeCoordinator, Colorado Division of Wildlife, 18 December 1998.

9. Telephone conversation with Kenneth Mayer, CaliforniaDepartment of Fish and Game, Sacramento, 21 December 1998.

10. Fish and Game Commission, Title 14, Sec. 601, 300–303 (July1994).

11. Telephone conversation with Kenneth Mayer, 5 November 1998.12. A list of properties in the program is available by contacting the

California Department of Fish and Game (916–653–7203).13. Telephone conversation with Kenneth Mayer, 21 December

1998.14. Figure for 1984 based on Mansfield, Mayer, and Callas (1989).

Figure for 1998 based on telephone conversation with KennethMayer, 21 December 1998.

15. Telephone conversation with John Seidel, Ranching for WildlifeCoordinator, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Carbondale, 4March 1999. Additional information received from Seidel, 1July 1999, by e-mail.

16. Written correspondence from Michael Robb, Crazy FrenchRanch, Colorado, 23 December 1998.

17. Three ranches with fewer than 12,000 acres were in the programon 1 September 1989, and they are allowed to stay in theprogram if all the other criteria are met.

18. Generally, the ranches reserve 90 percent of the male animallicenses to fee-paying hunters. Nonpaying hunters receive theremaining 10 percent as well as all female animal licenses.

19. In some cases, landowners in the program have a sixty-dayhunting season.

20. In 1998, the number of ranches was twenty-six, but one ranchdropped out for liability reasons and another was dismissed fromthe program for not completing its habitat work (Causey 1999a).

21. Telephone conversation with Mike Welch, Big Game ProgramCoordinator, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt LakeCity, 3 March 1999.

22. Telephone conversation with Wes Shields, Nature/BusinessCoordinator, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt LakeCity, 7 April 1999.

23. In addition to mule deer, elk, antelope, and moose, the divisionprovides authorizations for small game and waterfowl.

24. As in Colorado, this policy can lead to higher prices because itraises the cost of operation.

57

Anderson, Terry L., and Michael R. Houser. 1995. A Better Way toManage Wildlife on Public Lands. Rocky Mountain News,December 20.

Anderson, Terry L., and Donald R. Leal. 1997. Enviro-Capitalists:Doing Good While Doing Well. Lanham, MD: Rowman &Littlefield Publishers.

Arha, Kaush. 1994. Private Lands/Public Wildlife: A Survey ofState Programs for Wildlife Management on Private Lands inCalifornia, New Mexico, Utah, and Colorado. Missoula:Boone and Crockett Wildlife Conservation Program, School ofForestry, University of Montana.

———. 1997. Wildlife Conservation on Western Private Lands:Improving Conservation Policies and Incentives. Ph.D.dissertation. University of California, Berkeley.

REFERENCES

25. Telephone conversation with Roger Pugh, landowner, Alton unit(Utah), 26 January 1999.

26. Telephone conservation with Ray Heaton, landowner andoutfitter, Alton unit (Utah), 26 January 1999.

27. Data provided by Wes Shields, 7 April 1999, by fax.28. Telephone conversation with Mike Welch, 15 October 1998.29. Formerly called Private Land Allocation System (PLAS).30. Telephone conversation with Michael Catanach, Game Manager,

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Raton, 10 March1999.

31. Telephone conversation with Dale Hall, Landowner SportsmenCoordinator, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, SantaFe, 7 December 1998.

32. Telephone conversation with Jerry Shaw, Wildlife Biologist,Oklahoma Department of Wildlife, Oklahoma City, 21 August1998.

33. Telephone conversation with Jerry Shaw, 8 February 1999.34. Telephone conversation with Rolf Johnson, Deer and Elk

Manager, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,Olympia, 27 January 1999.

35. Telephone conversation with Jenny Schwab, AdministrativeCoordinator, Kapowsin Tree Farm, Champion Pacific Timber-lands, Puyallup, WA, 27 January 1999.

36. Telephone conversation with Rolf Johnson, 2 December 1998.37. Telephone conversation with Rolf Johnson, 30 December 1998.38. Telephone conversation with Gary Herron, Staff Biologist,

Nevada Division of Wildlife, Reno, 11 August 1998.39. For some eastern elk and for all buck mule deer, 160 acres is the

minimum for two tags.40. Telephone conversation with Rick Danvir, 15 March 1999.

58

Baen, John S. 1997. The Growing Importance and Value Implica-tions of Recreational Hunting Leases to Agricultural LandInvestors in America. Presentation at the American Real EstateSociety Meeting, Sarasota, FL, April 16–19.

Buschena, David, Terry L. Anderson, and Jerry L. Leonard. 1998.Valuing Non-Marketed Goods: The Case of Elk Hunting inColorado and Montana. Working paper 98-7. Political EconomyResearch Center, Bozeman, MT.

Butler, L. D., and J. P. Workman. 1993. Fee Hunting in the TexasTrans-Pecos Area: A Descriptive and Economic Analysis.Journal of Range Management 46: 38–42.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1995. Report to theLegislature: Management of Fish and Wildlife on Private Lands.Sacramento, September.

Causey, Don. 1998. This State’s Landowner Program A RealWinner. U.S. Hunting Report, June.

———. 1999a. Briefly Noted. U.S. Hunting Report, January.———. 1999b. Briefly Noted. U.S. Hunting Report, April.Colorado Wildlife Commission. 1993. A Synopsis of Guidelines for

Ranching for Wildlife Program. Denver, January.Davis, Robert K. 1995. A New Paradigm in Wildlife Conservation:

Using Markets to Produce Big Game Hunting. In Wildlife in theMarketplace, ed. Terry L. Anderson and Peter J. Hill. Lanham,MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 109–26.

Edvalson, Charles, III. 1997. Why You Should Consider NewMexico Pronghorns. U.S. Hunting Report, March.

Eskow, Jessica. 1998. Private Landowners Wildlife ManagementArea 401 (PLWMA 401) 1998 Annual Report. Puyallup, WA:Champion Pacific Timberlands, Inc., October 8.

Fears, J. Wayne. 1999. Ranching for Wildlife: This Family OffersQuality Hunts and Improves Elk Habitat. Progressive FarmerOnline [cited June 3]. Available: http://progressivefarmer.comruralsportsman/0596/ranching/index.html.

Fitzhugh, E. Lee. 1989. Innovation of the Private Lands WildlifeManagement Program: A History of Fee Hunting in California.Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 25:49–59.

Gerard, P. W. 1995. Agricultural Practices, Farm Policy, and theConservation of Biological Diversity. Biological Science Report4. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, NationalBiological Service.

Gilchrist, Duncan. 1997. Special Report. U.S. Hunting Report, July.Glick, Dennis, David Cowan, Robert Bonnie, David Wilcove, Chris

Williams, Dominick Dellasala, and Steve Primm. 1998.Incentives for Conserving Open Lands in Greater Yellowstone.Bozeman, MT: Greater Yellowstone Coalition.

Gooch, Bob. 1998a. Hunt-Planning Packages: California PLMArticles. Miami, FL: Hunting Report, October.

59

———. 1998b. More on Hunts through “Ranching for Wildlife.”U.S. Hunting Report, February.

Henckel, Mark. 1998. FWP Commission Wants Comment on AccessPlans. Billings Gazette, December 31.

Hicks, Kim M. 1999. Texas Hunting Directory. Fredericksburg, TX:Hunting Directories Inc., fall.

Irby, Lynn R., John Saltiel, Walter E. Zidack, and James B. Johnson.1997. Wild Ungulate Damage: Perceptions of Farmers andRanchers in Montana. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25: 320–29.

Krumm. Bob. 1998. Debate over Private Lands and Public WildlifeGrows in Wyoming. Billings Gazette, March 19.

Langner, Linda L. 1987. Hunter Participation in Fee AccessHunting. Transactions of the North American Wildlife andNatural Resource Conference 52: 475–81.

Larson, David, and Dwight Bunnel. 1989. Utah’s Posted HuntingUnit Program. Presented at Second International Landowner andSportsmen Relations Conference, Idaho Department of Fish andGame, Boise.

Leopold, Aldo. 1991 [1934]. Conservation Economics. In The Riverof the Mother of God and Other Essays by Aldo Leopold, ed.Susan L. Flader and J. Baird Callicott. Madison: University ofWisconsin Press, 193–202.

Lueck, Dean L. 1995. The Economic Organization of WildlifeInstitutions. In Wildlife in the Marketplace, ed. Terry L.Anderson and Peter J. Hill. Lanham, MD: Rowman & LittlefieldPublishers, 1–24.

Mansfield, Terry M., Kenneth E. Mayer, and Richard L. Callas.1989. California’s Private Lands Wildlife Management AreaProgram. Transactions of the Western Section of the WildlifeSociety 25: 45–48.

Messmer, Terry A., Charles E. Dixon, Wes Shields, Scott C. Barnes,and Susan A. Shroeder. 1998. Cooperative Wildlife ManagementUnits: Achieving Hunter, Landowner, and Wildlife ManagementAgency Objectives. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26(2): 325–32.

Montana Wildlife Federation. 1999. Public Ownership of Wildlife &the Threat of Privatization. Fax, February 22.

Pearce, Michael. 1997. Out of a Rut: Elk Hunting in the Southwest.Wall Street Journal, February 11.

Stalling, David. 1999. Public Elk, Private Lands: Should Landown-ers Benefit from Elk and Elk Hunting? Bugle, January-February.

Stapleton, Mark. 1998. Closeup: Western States. U.S. HuntingReport, March.

Swensson, Erik Jon. 1996. A Survey of Montana Hunter/RancherProblems and Solutions. Master’s thesis. Montana StateUniversity, Bozeman.

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 1999. Texas Hunting Licensesand Regulations [cited March 15]. Available: http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/hunt_licns.htm.

60

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S.Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1997. 1996National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-AssociatedRecreation. FHW/96-NAT. Washington, DC, November.

Wenders, John T. 1995. The Economics of Elk Management. InWildlife in the Marketplace, ed. Terry L. Anderson and Peter J.Hill. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 89–108.

Wigley, T. Bently, and M. Anthony Melchiors. 1987. State WildlifeManagement Programs for Private Land. Wildlife SocietyBulletin 15: 580–84.

Wright, Byron David. 1997. Comparisons between New Mexico FeeHunting Enterprises on Public and Private Land Ranches.Master’s thesis. New Mexico State University, Las Cruces.

■

61

Authorized Harvest: 6 buck deer, 2 buck antelope

• Maintain willow plantings on Pine Creek• Remove junipers at spring sites to improve water availability• Prune 50 mahogany trees• Defer grazing on 300 acres for waterfowl brood survival• Protect 1,000 acres of meadows for fawning and waterfowl

brood habitat• Exclude livestock from designated areas• Provide mineral supplements for wildlife

Authorized Harvest: 3 buck deer, 2 antlerless deer, 2 buck antelope

• Maintain 15 acres of flooded swamp timothy for waterfowl,25 acres of grain for wildlife, 35 acres of ponds for water-fowl brood habitat, and 20 acres of rose hedges, willows,and tules for wildlife cover

• Exclude cattle from ponds and food plots• Maintain 180 acres of alfalfa and deferred harvest until after

the nesting season• Construct 600 feet of fence allowing for antelope movement• Maintain four raptor perch poles• Utilize flush bars on all harvesters to decrease wildlife

mortality resulting from agricultural operations

Authorized Harvest: 10 buck deer, 1 buck antelope

• Maintain a 5-acre cattle exclosure for fawning habitat• Maintain water levels in the two marsh areas to facilitate

waterfowl brood survival• Plant 200 willow cuttings along Prather Creek• Make sure that no livestock grazing will occur on U.S. Forest

Service allotment in 1998• Maintain eight permanent and four portable perch poles to

improve Swainson’s hawk habitat• Maintain 1,000 acres of irrigated alfalfa• Eliminate cattle grazing along Prather Creek• Maintain six burrowing-owl nest boxes

APPENDIX A: TYPICAL HABITAT IMPROVEMENTS

FIVE DOT HORSE LAKE RANCH, LASSEN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

TULE LAND AND CATTLE CO., LASSEN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

PRATHER RANCH, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

62

Authorized Harvest: 40 deer of either sex

• Maintain seven wood duck nest boxes• Maintain small animal access ramps in 25 water sources• Maintain 15 mineral supplement sources for wildlife• Maintain a nest protection zone for nesting peregrine

falcon• Maintain conservative rest-rotational cattle grazing• Plant alders and willows as riparian habitat enhancement• Modify fencing to provide for improved wildlife movement• Create one living brush pile for upland species• Plant two food plots for deer• Build two additional water source ponds for wildlife

STEWART RANCH, TRINITY COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

■

Source: Data provided by Ken Mayer, Senior Wildlife Biologist and DeerProgram Coordinator, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, 8April 1999.

63

California Dept of Fish & GameWildlife Programs Branch1416 Ninth Street, Rm 1280Sacramento, CA 95814

APPENDIX B: RANCHING FOR WILDLIFE PROGRAMS

CALIFORNIA: PRIVATE LANDS WILDLIFE HABITAT ENHANCEMENT

Contact: Sonke MastrupPhone: (916)653-4673Fax: (916)653-1019

AND MANAGEMENT AREAS

COLORADO: RANCHING FOR WILDLIFE

Colorado Division of Wildlife317 W Prospect AveFort Collins, CO 80526

Contact: Rick KahnE-mail: rick.kahn@state.co.usPhone: (970)472-4342Fax: (970)442-4457

Nevada Division of WildlifePO Box 10678Reno, NV 89520

Contact: Gary HerronPhone: (775)688-1500Fax: (775)688-1595

NEVADA: ELK INCENTIVE TAGS AND LANDOWNER DAMAGE

COMPENSATION TAGS

NEW MEXICO: LAND OWNER SIGN-UP SYSTEM (LOSS)

Contact: Eufemia CordovaPhone: (505)827-7824Fax: (505)827-7915

New Mexico Dept of Game & FishPO Box 25112Santa Fe, NM 87504

OKLAHOMA: DEER MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE

Contact: Jerry ShawPhone: (405) 521-2739Fax: (405)521-6505

Oklahoma Dept of WildlifePO Box 53465Oklahoma City, OK 73152

OREGON: LANDOWNER PREFERENCE

Oregon Dept of Fish & WildlifePO Box 59Portland, OR 97207

Contact: Brenda MillerPhone: (503)872-5265Fax: (503)872-5311

64

Utah Division of Wildlife ResourcesPO Box 146301Salt Lake City, UT 84114-6301

Contact: Wes ShieldsE-mail: nrdwr.wshields@state.ut.usPhone: (801)538-4780Fax: (801)538-4709

UTAH: COOPERATIVE WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT UNITS

WASHINGTON: PRIVATE LANDS WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREAS

Washington Dept of Fish & Wildlife600 Capitol Way NorthOlympia, WA 98501-1091

Contact: Rolf JohnsonPhone: (360)902-2200Fax: (360)902-2162

■

65

The following individuals and organizations can provide information for thoseinterested in starting or building a ranching for wildlife program.

APPENDIX C: ADDITIONAL CONTACTS

ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVES

0214 Prince DriveCarbondale CO 81623

John Seidel retired in 1999 from the position of statewidecoordinator of Colorado’s Ranching for Wildlife. He now runsEnvironmental Perspectives, a consulting company that special-izes in ranching for wildlife and similar programs.

Contact: John SeidelE-mail: jwseidel@rof.netPhone: (970)963-1976Fax: (970)963-8849

PO Box 250Woodruff, UT 84086-0038

Deseret, which participates as a Utah Cooperative WildlifeManagement unit, demonstrates how livestock and wildlife canco-exist so that both habitat and agriculture benefit. Fee huntinghas paid dividends to the landowner, hunters, and game andnongame species on and near the ranch.

DESERET INTERMOUNTAIN RANCHESContact: Bill Hopkin or Rick DanvirPhone: (801)793-4288

PO Box 3206Logan, UT 84323-3206

Rich LaRocco books hunts with ranches participating in Utah’sCooperative Wildlife Management Units (CWMU) program. Hekeeps abreast of changes occurring within the program.

ASSOCIATED HUNTING CONSULTANTSContact: Rich LaRoccoPhone: (801)860-4868http://www.hunts.net

1011 E Main St Ste 303Puyallup, WA 98372

Champion’s 125,000-acre Kapowsin Tree Farm conducts a widevariety of game and nongame activities. It is one of the twocommercial forests enrolled in Washington’s Private WildlifeManagement Area program.

CHAMPION PACIFIC TIMBERLANDS

Contact: Robert BassPhone: (360)879-4217

66

WYOMING GAME AND FISH

Casper Region Office3030 Energy Lane, Ste 100Casper, WY 82604

Wyoming does not have ranching for wildlife, but Kaush Arha isan expert on such programs. He completed his thesis at theUniversity of California at Berkeley on the subject.

Contact: Kaush ArhaPhone: (307)473-3400

■

MULTIPLE USE MANAGERS, INC.

PO Box 1210West Point, CA 95255-1210

Multiple Use Managers, Inc., (MUM) provides fee hunting andwildlife management on three units in California and one inColorado. An early participant in the planning stage of thepioneering California program, Wayne Long can providevaluable insights on initiating a ranching for wildlife program.

Contact: Wayne or Gordon LongPhone: (209)293-7087Fax: (209)293-7105

9300 S Dadeland Blvd Ste 605Miami, FL 331566-2721

This monthly newsletter offers reports on many hunting opportu-nities, including ranching for wildlife. The Hunting Report, alsopublished by Don Causey, is a similar newsletter that coversinternational hunting opportunities. Excerpts from these newslet-ters are compiled periodically into hunt-planning packages forspecific areas.

U.S. HUNTING REPORTContact: Don CauseyE-mail: mail@HuntingReport.comPhone: (318)862-9561

67

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

DONALD LEAL, a PERC senior associate, has been conduct-ing research in natural resource and environmental issuessince 1985. He is coauthor with Terry Anderson of FreeMarket Environmentalism (1991), which received the1992 Choice Outstanding Academic Book Award, and the1992 Sir Antony Fisher International Memorial Awards,and coauthor with Anderson of Enviro-Capitalists: DoingGood While Doing Well, which won the 1997 ChoiceOutstanding Academic Book Award. He is a contributingauthor of Taking Ownership: Property Rights and FisheryManagement on the Atlantic Coast (1996), MultipleConflicts over Multiple Uses (1994), Taking the Environ-ment Seriously (1993), and coeditor of The YellowstonePrimer: Land and Resource Management in the GreaterYellowstone Ecosystem (1990). He has published numer-ous articles on such topics as fisheries, water, recreation,oil and gas, timber, and public land-use policy. His articlesappear in newspapers such as the Wall Street Journal, NewYork Times, and Chicago Tribune, as well as specializedjournals. Leal’s recent studies comparing federal and statemanagement of forests and parks have fostered a newperspective on public land management. He is currentlyworking on a revised edition of Free Market Environmen-talism with Terry Anderson. Leal received his B.S. inmathematics and M.S. in statistics from California StateUniversity at Hayward.

J. BISHOP GREWELL, a PERC research associate, graduatedfrom Stanford University in 1997 with a double major ineconomics and public policy. He is a sixth-generationMontanan. Grewell is responsible for PERC’s multimediaproject and provides research assistance to PERC seniorassociates. He is currently working with Terry Andersonon a PERC Policy Series on “The Greening of U.S.Foreign Policy.” Grewell began writing guest columns forthe Bozeman Daily Chronicle in 1998 and has sincebecome a regular columnist for the paper. Grewell enjoysthe outdoors but spends much of his spare time indoorswriting novels.

■

68

PERC (the Political Economy Research Center) is anationally recognized institute located in Bozeman, Mon-tana. The organization’s primary goal is to provide marketsolutions to environmental problems. PERC pioneered theapproach known as free market environmentalism andconducts research in the areas of water, forestry, publiclands, and endangered species, among others.

Free market environmentalism is based on several tenets:Private property rights encourage stewardship of re-sources; government subsidies often degrade the environ-ment; market incentives encourage individuals to protectenvironmental quality; and polluters should be liable forthe harm they cause others.

For more information about free market environmentalism,contact PERC at:

PERC502 South 19th Avenue, Suite 211Bozeman, MT 59718-6827

Phone: (406)587-9591Fax: (406)586-7555E-mail: perc@perc.orghttp://www.perc.org

ABOUT PERC

■