New Mexico Privatization. Nuthin like it

[seeth07]

I'm not sure what the historic population of elk were pre-settlement, do you have that number? How does that number fit with the loss of bison on the landscape and use of livestock?

One thing I've often wondered is if there was a way to calculate land habitats and get an "elk calving unit" or "elk unit" at a very scientific level in the same way that AU and cow calf units are done on landscapes.

I wonder this because a person could compare the two and then assign a value based on the cattle market to what the elk are really worth on the landscape. A lot of a good management and government programs regarding wildlife could be made if this existed. Maybe it does and I just haven't run across it before.

 

[Ben Lamb]

One thing I've often wondered is if there was a way to calculate land habitats and get an "elk calving unit" or "elk unit" at a very scientific level in the same way that AU and cow calf units are done on landscapes.

I wonder this because a person could compare the two and then assign a value based on the cattle market to what the elk are really worth on the landscape. A lot of a good management and government programs regarding wildlife could be made if this existed. Maybe it does and I just haven't run across it before.

IIRC, the AUM conversion for elk to cows is about 1.5 to 1 (3 elk to 2 cows). If you figure out the state grazing rate and the number of elk on a property, you can come close to a dollar figure that matches livestock.

PERC is doing some interesting work on this relative to elk usage and compensation for providing the space for animals, but it max's out at $12,000 (I think). repeating that on a larger scale is difficult on public dollars due to diversion issues and loss of control of funding. However, this is where other states have adopted other models that help landowners get the dollar figure they need to make wildlife less of a burden (remember, many states hold that wildlife exist as a condition of the land, and landowners must bear some tolerance towards them as they do the wind, rain and soil). Wyoming's walk-in program is very inexpensive but it provides what most landowners are looking for: A way to manage the hunters so they don't conflict with their operation. MT has multiple programs including Block Mgt, PALA, Habitat MT (both short term and perpetual conservation leasing), Upland Game Bird, Waterfowl, etc.

I'd actually posit that MT's conservation leasing system is better than NM's transferability because you're doing more than temporarily supporting ag through the transferability of licenses by supplying large payments for term leases that protect land for 40 years. Those landowners get a large up-front payment, tax abatement and they provide managed access for recreation, while also ensuring family agriculture can afford to stay on the land.

The NM system is a hand-to-mouth system at best, and it doesn't seem to provide long-standing conservation benefit because there is no real commitment beyond the license for conservation.

 

[seeth07]

MT's conservation leasing system

Any conservation leasing/program is hands down the absolute best way to go in terms of securing habitat and wildlife for the future. Regardless of access/tags, in terms of the land and what lives there is what matters. Asking for access and/or ability to hunt them is just the cherry on top of the pie.

 

[Valley1320]

Just saw this, havnt listened to it.

Let's talk wildlife management

On the next Let’s Talk New Mexico, we will talk about a unique, one-of-a-kind system meant to offset damage caused by elk and incentivize private land conservation and attempts to reform and properly fund state agencies. We’ll also dive head-first into how the state manages our game and fish.

www.kunm.org

 

[Benfromalbuquerque]

Just saw this, havnt listened to it.

Let's talk wildlife management

On the next Let’s Talk New Mexico, we will talk about a unique, one-of-a-kind system meant to offset damage caused by elk and incentivize private land conservation and attempts to reform and properly fund state agencies. We’ll also dive head-first into how the state manages our game and fish.

www.kunm.org

Director of the guide council was doing a great job obfuscating and then our guy comes in 30:31.

 

[Archer86]

 

[Treeshark]

Keep those meme skills sharp @Archer86… your state’s turn is coming soon

 

[Benfromalbuquerque]

IIRC, the AUM conversion for elk to cows is about 1.5 to 1 (3 elk to 2 cows). If you figure out the state grazing rate and the number of elk on a property, you can come close to a dollar figure that matches livestock.

PERC is doing some interesting work on this relative to elk usage and compensation for providing the space for animals, but it max's out at $12,000 (I think). repeating that on a larger scale is difficult on public dollars due to diversion issues and loss of control of funding. However, this is where other states have adopted other models that help landowners get the dollar figure they need to make wildlife less of a burden (remember, many states hold that wildlife exist as a condition of the land, and landowners must bear some tolerance towards them as they do the wind, rain and soil). Wyoming's walk-in program is very inexpensive but it provides what most landowners are looking for: A way to manage the hunters so they don't conflict with their operation. MT has multiple programs including Block Mgt, PALA, Habitat MT (both short term and perpetual conservation leasing), Upland Game Bird, Waterfowl, etc.

I'd actually posit that MT's conservation leasing system is better than NM's transferability because you're doing more than temporarily supporting ag through the transferability of licenses by supplying large payments for term leases that protect land for 40 years. Those landowners get a large up-front payment, tax abatement and they provide managed access for recreation, while also ensuring family agriculture can afford to stay on the land.

The NM system is a hand-to-mouth system at best, and it doesn't seem to provide long-standing conservation benefit because there is no real commitment beyond the license for conservation.

NM does have a long-established program for private land outdoor rec access called Open Gate. It’s paid out of the compulsory Habitat Stamp we all buy with hunting/fishing licenses. The G&F has on their website that ‘22-‘23 license year had 26 properties under lease for different activities funded at $254,450.00 from the stamp fund.
I’ve brought this up previously in these e-plus discussions and it’s dismissed by some others as not enough compensation, strangers destroying property, liability oh my! Well no, it’s only compensation and the effort involved therein. The State does provide liability coverage as part of this program and a “lease” may be as simple as access to inaccessible public land. On the other hand, an e-plus recipient in certain units could potentially bank $10k+ a tag without effort. And they still get to have full control over their land for operations.

 

[bulldawg10]

NM does have a long-established program for private land outdoor rec access called Open Gate. It’s paid out of the compulsory Habitat Stamp we all buy with hunting/fishing licenses. The G&F has on their website that ‘22-‘23 license year had 26 properties under lease for different activities funded at $254,450.00 from the stamp fund.
I’ve brought this up previously in these e-plus discussions and it’s dismissed by some others as not enough compensation, strangers destroying property, liability oh my! Well no, it’s only compensation and the effort involved therein. The State does provide liability coverage as part of this program and a “lease” may be as simple as access to inaccessible public land. On the other hand, an e-plus recipient in certain units could potentially bank $10k+ a tag without effort. And they still get to have full control over their land for operations.

It would only protect a landowner from injuries, death, etc on their property. It does not provide protection to the landowner from damages, theft, trash, risk to livestock that is more likely to occur when you invite the public onto your property.

Eplus provides far more incentive to landowners to make them willing to take these risks as a land owner. It also encourages habitat development where as open gate does not. EPLUS additionally is funded by private dollars, where as open gate requires fees and taxes.

Eplus is the better option. While also providing you and everyone else multiple additional ways to hunt. Buy land, or buy a tag...plus there is always the draw and its growing number of tags. Nobody wants to get rid of the draw. They just don't want other options that work really well to be eliminated either.

NM has three great ways to potential secure a hunt.

Draw
Landownership
Transferable Tags

Give me more options! Not less

Open gate does not create these additonal options to be able to create hunting opportunities for everyone either.

 

[Archer86]

Keep those meme skills sharp @Archer86… your state’s turn is coming soon

Treeshark trying to carry the transferable landowner football Into wyoming. Then buzz shows up

 

[Treeshark]

Have to give it to you @Archer86, that’s pretty good!

Despite the big hit, we’re in the red zone with possession of the ball.

Looks about right

 

[Rzrbk]

Can't believe this post is still going.

Maybe these thoughts have already been discussed. If so, I apologize. I can understand different views on this.

I've lived and hunted in many different states and so I have a range of real-life experience.

I'll say that NM system was a shock when I first moved here. Unlike most other States, in NM there really aren't opportunities for "over-the-counter" big game draws. For example, in California a hunter can always get an "over-the-counter" tag in the B zones and go on a decent deer hunt every year. In NM, you're just shart out of luck unless you pay big money for a private land hunt. That is a VERY tough reality for someone who identifies as a hunter. There can be many years before you even get the opportunity to hunt big game. If you can't afford out of state tags or a private land hunt, then you are a hunter who hardly gets to hunt in their home State, unless you are satisfied with javelina, dove, quail, rabbit kind of stuff. Soooo, I totally understand the pain of an average NM hunter. NM does not have bunches of habitat/deer and elk tags and so odds are low even though a large percentage of said tags go to resident hunters. I am able to hunt another State every year or else I'd be very hollow and empty inside as a person who identifies as a "hunter" yet lives in a State where I rarely get to hunt.

I'm similar to a previous post in this thread in that I would never pay big money for any sort of hunt since a large part of my motivation is "filling the freezer". I'd rather buy a side of beef and then go on a hiking trip into elk country and just view the elk. I can't stand the thought of paying thousands for a hunt and ending up with nothing in the freezer. Guiding myself is also a large part of my hunting enjoyment and paying for a hunt usually entails a guide. Then again, if I paid thousands I'd want the guide to increase my odds although it simultaneously detracts from my enjoyment in being independent.

On the topic of E-plus landowners who get elk tags for very small ownership parcels. I wonder if these small acreages are more valuable because they contain water or some other valuable and limited resource? Ifm so, maybe NM could invest a little dough to create an alternative water source nearby. That would offset the value of the small private parcel and we take their private land tag away because the taxpayer dollars have created a water system to where the private land water is no longer the only water in the area. Maybe NM could invest in negating these very small private parcels by creating similar habitat nearby? When I lived and hunted Nevada I found guzzlers all over the place. Guzzlers and other habitat investments seem rare in NM.

I looked online at NM Ranches for sale. Land/Ranch prices are much higher if they come with E-plus tags or have antelope and other game opportunities. So, isn't NM benefitting from increased land/taxes on ranches with game? It seems to me that the landowners have already paid the price for elk, deer, antelope when they paid a premium for the property. Taking tags away from private landowners at this point would devalue their land. I'd only buy NM property for the ability to hunt. I'd be super pissed if I paid a premium for a nice ranch with elk and the system changed. I also wouldn't value the elk if they were on my property detracting from the carrying capacity for my cattle. Regardless, I believe landowners play a huge role in game management and we need them to be part of the system and so they also need to benefit.

It's a tough issue and I can see the other side of things even though I don't agree with booting private landowners out of the system. Similar to how I don't agree that "taxing the rich" is the solution to all life's problems even though that solution gets lots of votes from the common man.