Last year, 3,119 Colorado public hunters experienced the opportunity to hunt on certain large private ranches through a program called Ranching for Wildlife.
Most return a report card describing a glorious hunt and dramatically high success. A few complain of perceived unfair treatment resulting in far less satisfaction.
In response, the Colorado Division of Wildlife appointed a review committee as part of a process aimed at greater uniformity and compliance among the 26 landowners who currently participate in an arrangement in operation since 1986.
When the Colorado Wildlife Commission got its turn to chew on the recommendations two weeks ago, the policy-making body hammered out a series of changes aimed at making Ranching for Wildlife a more user-friendly system, effective 2006.
Under a new incentive-based system, all new RFW contracts begin at 80 percent of male licenses. Ranches can qualify for 85 or 90 percent allocation by meeting performance standards regarding hunter satisfaction, exceptional habitat improvement and contribution to herd management.
All female licenses will accrue to the public.
Ranches must maintain high success rates and generally high satisfaction among public hunters who spend precious preference points to gain access.
Public hunters must be informed of charges for additional services such as guiding or game retrieval.
Ranches must schedule at least 25 percent of their private license allocation to coincide with regular rifle seasons to improve animal distribution.
While recognizing there may be a few bad apples in the bunch, Wildlife officials generally are pleased with the performance of a great majority of the participating ranches, which range in size from the minimum 12,000 acres to the giant 180,000 Forbes Trinchera Ranch east of Alamosa.
At a time when nonpaying big-game hunters almost universally are excluded from private property, RFW provides an important vehicle for at least some form of free public access.
The program also plays a key role both in harvesting female elk to obtain population objectives and in moving animals off private land.
The motive for rancher participation is easy to understand. In return for giving the public all its female permits and 10 percent of male tags, a ranch gains broad and valuable concessions to maximize its revenue from high-paying private clients.
Participating ranches can extend hunting over a four-month period, including the rut for both deer and elk. This allows for a more expansive processing of paying guests, with a higher level of service and success that, in turn, allows them to charge more money.
Critics, which include many neighboring landholders, complain of overhunting and various other abuses on these large ranches.
Others resent RFW as yet another concession to the growing trend toward commercialization of Colorado’s outdoor recreation.
As the program moves toward its third decade, its ultimate success – or demise – should rest on the ability of participants to comply with these new, higher standards.
Wildlife managers should be quick to cull the bad apples, lest the whole program begin to smell.
