COOPERATIVE WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT UNITS : ACHIEVING HUNTER, LANDOWNER, AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AGENCY OBJECTIVES

Abstract

We surveyed participants in Utah's alternative, fee-access program for hunt management, Cooperative Wildlife Management Units (CWMUs), during 1994 to determine if the program created satisfying hunting opportunities, improved hunting access to private lands, and increased wildlife habitat. Hunters who received big game tags to hunt CWMUs through a public drawing were more satisfied with their hunting experience than hunters who paid access fees to landowners. The units provided access for big game hunting to 400,000 ha of private land that previously had been closed to the public. Under the program, landowners improved wildlife habitat on >15,000 ha of private rangeland. Cooperative Wildlife Management Units provide an example of how wildlife agencies can guide the development of alternative management programs to promote wildlife conservation and hunting access on private rangelands. This content downloaded from 157.55.39.130 on Wed, 23 Nov 2016 04:57:01 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 326 KIdlife Society Bulletin 1998, 26(2):329332 (Doig 1986) have created a market for fee-access hunting in the United States (Wallace et al. 1989). A1though fee-access hunting was recommended by the American Game Policy Committee in 1930 as a logical means of compensating landowners for wildlife production and hunting on private lands (Leopold 1930), wildlife agencies are reluctant to promote feeaccess hunting and landowner compensation programs (Wigley and Melchiors 1987). Opponents argue fee-access hunting will exclude some socio-economic groups from the hunting experience, decrease hunter participation, and direct people away from land-based? outdoor recreation, thereby eroding the public's interest in wildlife conservation (Swenson 1983; Wiggers and Rootes 1987; Geist 1985, 1988). Landowners in the agricultural community may be concerned about damage associated with larger populations of wildlife that may result under agency management initiatives (Wade 1987). Wildlife damage may discourage many private landowners from managing for wildlife on their property (Conover 1994). To be successful, wildlife managers must balance landowner concerns, the public's interest in wildlife production, and the biological needs of wildlife populations (Ramsey and Shult 1981, Noonan and Zagata 1982, Wade 1987, Morrill 1989, Hewitt and Messmer 1997). Although 72% of Utah is public land, many big game populations are dependent on privately owned land (Larson and Bunnell 1989). This situation creates conflicts between landowners and potential users of publicly owned wildlife resources, who may be denied hunting access to private land. To address this problem, in 1990 Utah's Wildlife Board approved a 3-year experiment to evaluate Cooperative Wildlife Management Units (CWMU). The CWMU program was codified in 1994 by the Utah Legislature. Cooperative Wildlife Management Units are hunting areas authorized for the specific purpose of managing moose (Alces atces), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), elk (Cersus elaphus), and pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) on private rangeland in Utah. The CWMU program was established to: (1) provide income for landowners, (2) create satisfying hunting opportunities, (3) increase wildlife habitat, (4) provide adequate trespass protection for landowners who open their lands for hunting, and (5) increase access to private lands for hunting big game (Utah Legislature 1953). Landowners interested in participating in the program must contact local Utah Division of Wildlife Resource (UDWR) biologists that are responsible for managing big game populations in the proposed CWMU area. The biologists then assist the landowners in preparing the CWMU application, which is submitted to the Wildlife Board £or review. Applications must contain all pertinent information regarding the size, location, and ownership of the private land being enrolled in the program, the big game species to be managed, the number of hunting permits requested, and a CWMU management plan. Management plans identify population objectives for big game of the landowner and UDWR (e.g., existing and desired buck:doe, bull:cow, fawn:doe, cow:calf ratios), habitat use, and proposed habitat management activities for the area. The Utah Wildlife Board annually reviews existing and new CWMU applications. The Board may refuse applications; reasons for refusal are provided at the time of review. Approved CWMUs are issued a certificate of registration (COR) by the UDWR that defines management guidelines specific to the unit. The UDWR collects a $150 fee for each COR issued to cover program administrative costs. Currently, there are no limits on the number of CWMUs authorized annually by the Wildlife Board. A CWMU consists of at least 4,000 contiguous ha of private land, of which >75% must be open to hunting. The boundaries must be posted using signs provided by the UDWR. Although CWMUs are mostly pri+rate land, small inholdings of public land with no public access can be included in a unit. The Utah Wildlife Board also may approve units <d,000 ha in size when the UDWR determines it is necessary to achieve herd unit management objectives or when other special circumstances exist (e.g., excessive big game depredation). The minimum CWMU size requirements frequently are met when different landowners of small, adjacent tracts submit an application jointly. To do this, interested landowners must form an association and appoint a representative, who then works with the UDWR to prepare the application. Cooperative Wildlife Management Units are given flexibility in setting hunting dates and a choice of permit allocation options (Table 1). The units are authorized to conduct hunts outside of the regular season for big game hunting. For example, Utah rifle seasons for buck mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and bull elk (Cersus elaphus) last from 10 days to 2 weeks and are held during mid-October. Cooperative Wildlife Management Unit rifle seasons for buck mule deer and bull elk last 45 days (15 Sep-31 Oct). To hunt in a CWMU, hunters must obtain the appropriate permit. Permits may be obtained from the CWMU landowner or representative, or through Utah's big game drawirlg. Utah residents may apply for bucks or bulls and antlerless permits; nonresidents may apply only for antlerless permits in the state's big game drawing. Nonresidents and residents This content downloaded from 157.55.39.130 on Wed, 23 Nov 2016 04:57:01 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Table 1. Big game permit allocation options for Utah Cooperative Wildlife Management Units (CWMU). CWMU share (%) Public share (%) Species Option Antlered Antlerless Antlered Antlerless Moose and pronghorn 1 60 0 40 0 2 60 40 40 60 Elk and mule deer 1 90 0 10 100 2 85 25 15 75 3 80 40 20 60 4 75 S0 25 50 5 50 0 50 0 Cooperative management units * Messmer et al. 327 Hunters were asked to provide information on: (1) state of residence; (2) age and sex; (3) years of hunting experience in Utah; (4) why they wanted to hunt in a CWMU; (5) what amenities were provided free or for a fee; (6) number of hunting companions; (7) number of days allowed to hunt and days actually hunted; (8) whether or not advice was given on areas to hunt; (9) number of animals also may obtain buck or bull permits through CWMU landowners or representatives. Permits obtained through the big game drawing guarantee successful applicants free access and hunting opportunities comparable to those of hunters who obtained their permits through CWMU landowners or representatives. In both cases, the hunter must pay the permit fee directly to the UDWR. Hunters who receive a permit through the big game drawing may purchase certain amenities (e.g., guide services, meals, lodging) through CWMU landowners. Hunters who obtain access permits through CWMU larldowners or representatives are usually charged additional fees for access and amenities. Cooperative Wildlife Management Units establish their own schedules for hunter-access and amenity fees. We surveyed hunters who received CWMU permits in 1994 to determine if access to private lands for big game hunting and hunting experiences differed according to how the permits were obtained. We also surveyed CWMU landowners and operators to determine why they participated in the program, their satisfaction with participating hunters, and what wildlife habitat projects had been implemented on their land. This information is important for wildlife agencies in developing successful, alternative programs for fee-access hunt management.