New Mexico Privatization. Nuthin like it

[seeth07]

What number are turned into a license? From the way I understand the process, you buy the voucher and then turn it into NMF&G and receive a tag. This number I'm sure will explain the huge increase in elk licenses issued overall from 2018 to 2019. There was an increase of almost 5,000 EPLUS vouchers. Was it because they knew 5,000 weren't going to get turned in and used under the new process?

Wait, this means they need to pay the NR or R fee on top of the voucher cost as well so NMF&G is still getting their money for the license right? Someone said it is taking money away from them and putting it into the ranch owners pocket when reality is that it is a double dip where both get paid...

 

[TOGIE]

According to this podcast, 54.5% of the total elk are obtained by a New Mexico resident hunter without paying a landowner or outfitter.

Episode 199: Wildlife Trustees – Accountable to Who? – Hunt Talk Radio

hunttalkradio.com

here is colorado's elk breakdown. i didn't look up draw data pre 2015. 2016 forward is the complete picture.

i don't know how LPP breaks down R/NR. CPW might have that info, but it might also lie in the hands of the landowners. Either way, I don't think it materially changes the results.

I only have OTC residency data up until 2021.

LPP all said and done isn't as big of a deal in Colorado when you look at the numbers compared to to New Mexico but those numbers will go up dramatically when OTC goes away.

 

[SAJ-99]

I only fault them when they are using political means to take more than their fair share from the public.

What political means? Are you saying that landowners in NM have control of the politics in the state? That is a tough sell to me after seeing signs in the area I saw last year.

What benefits can you prove come from this system? Elk populations in other states are growing as well.

Because I don't see crazy ideas in the NM legislature to reduce elk numbers. Residents can fill us in on the details if that is wrong. The benefit of putting a $ value on elk is people know what the exact value is. Doesn't mean I like it, just have to acknowledge it. The habitat in NM is unique. My understanding is landowners have to do specific things to accommodate elk to get the tags. That puts more elk or desert sheep or whatever on the mountain. That has a $ cost.

"Equitable" is a subjective term that can be endlessly debated, so what % is equitable is unknown. I also don't want to debate what the economic impact is in the "trickle down" or whatever. Any economic debate requires a lot of numbers and assumptions, for or against any particular action, to be pulled out of thin air.

As has been pointed out, Rs can buy the tag from the LO. You are arguing the low-income people in NM should be able to hunt elk for $90 at a higher % than how the tag allocation is structured now. Fine, but you still have to pay the bills and keep LOs from viewing elk as taking feed out of the mouths of the cattle (and hence $s out of their pocket).

Your other questions have been addressed by others. Like I said, we probably agree on not liking the system at face value. But this is for residents to fix and there is no "perfect" solution.

 

[Archer86]

 

[seeth07]

I decided to dig into some actual real numbers myself rather than read new releases and rely on people here or elsewhere to skew data.

2023 EPLUS list of landowners receiving vouchers from the allocation process:

https://www.wildlife.state.nm.us/download/hunting/maps/e-plus/2023_E-PLUS_LANDOWNER_LIST_PMZ_8_30_23.pdf

I put the data all in a spreadsheet and here are the total numbers. Note that it isn't anywhere close to 13,600.


2023 Public draw results can be found here:

Draw Info, Odds & Success Tips - NMDGF

New Mexico’s big game drawing is subject to a quota system. Information found here on how the draw works, draw odds and report summaries, and success tips.

www.wildlife.state.nm.us

22783 total elk tags including the NR allocation and the outfitter allocation.
6961 antlerless tags which are only available to residents. Outfitter allocation pool drew 119 antlerless tags.
20275 went to residents (88.99% of all tags)
921 went to NR (4.05%)
1587 went in the outfitter allocation (6.96% of all tags)
15822 Bull tags. Breakdown is 5.82% NR, 9.28% Outfitter and 84.9% R

Total elk tags = 22783 + 8768 = 31,551.

"Public draw" vs EPLUS = 8,768/31,551 = 27.79% in EPLUS and 72.21% in the public draw.

EPLUS antlerless to Bull tag ratio = 2882/8768 = 32.87%

"Public draw" antlerless to Bull tag ratio = 30.55%

EPLUS RO to UW = 2466 UW and 6302 RO = 28.13% are UW.

1699 UW Bull tags in EPLUS.

 

[brocksw]

What political means? Are you saying that landowners in NM have control of the politics in the state? That is a tough sell to me after seeing signs in the area I saw last year.

When New Mexican residents and local orgs voice their concern to commissioners and get commission members to talk about this very issue, they get kicked off the commission by the governor. Or the Gov. getting donations from landowners/outfitters that benefit from this system. That is using political means.

The benefit of putting a $ value on elk is people know what the exact value is. Doesn't mean I like it, just have to acknowledge it.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I'm not sure how you're acknowledging anything. Just saying it's a benefit without showing the New Mexican public how that benefits them (the beneficiaries of the trust corpus), doesn't add up.

How does it benefit the trust or the beneficiaries?

"Equitable" is a subjective term that can be endlessly debated, so what % is equitable is unknown. I also don't want to debate what the economic impact is in the "trickle down" or whatever. Any economic debate requires a lot of numbers and assumptions, for or against any particular action, to be pulled out of thin air.

Agreed to some a certain extent, equitable is certainly subjective. But, I would say when landowners are getting nearly double the $ that the entire NMGF department has for an annual budget, just from eplus elk codes, and they're taking around half the resource they don't own, that doesn't pass the sniff test.

What trust would you be a part of that gives around half the trust assets away to one group, without being able to prove they're getting anything remotely close in value back, and that group is collecting double the money that your entire management department gets for managing that resource?

As has been pointed out, Rs can buy the tag from the LO. You are arguing the low-income people in NM should be able to hunt elk for $90 at a higher % than how the tag allocation is structured now. Fine, but you still have to pay the bills and keep LOs from viewing elk as taking feed out of the mouths of the cattle (and hence $s out of their pocket).

I am arguing people of just average means can't afford those tags and as resident beneficiaries of that state, they shouldn't have to. The argument that anyone can buy those tags, including residents, so that makes it ok, is a chit argument in my opinion.

But this is for residents to fix and there is no "perfect" solution.

They're working on it

Exposing the Truth About Elk Hunting License Allocation in New Mexico

In 2022, the New Mexico Wildlife Federation (NMWF) and New Mexico Backcountry Hunters & Anglers (BHA) released a groundbreaking report titled “Take Back Your Elk.” Looking at data from the 2020-21 elk season, the report documented for the first time exact

www.takebackyourelk.com

NMWF Urges NM State Game Commission to Reform Elk Permit System - New Mexico Wildlife Federation

By Ben Neary NMWF Conservation Director SILVER CITY — New Mexico needs to reform its practice of handing more than one-third of its elk licenses straight to private landowners, representatives... Read more »

nmwildlife.org

4/19/24 NM State Game Commission Recap

Backcountry Hunters & Anglers is the voice for our wild public lands, waters and wildlife.

www.backcountryhunters.org

New Mexico Elk Tags – There Must Be A Better Way

Backcountry Hunters & Anglers is the voice for our wild public lands, waters and wildlife.

www.backcountryhunters.org

Episode 199: Wildlife Trustees – Accountable to Who? – Hunt Talk Radio

hunttalkradio.com

Episode 119. Fighting for Our Future

Podcast Episode · Hunt Quietly · May 12, 2024 · 1h 54m

podcasts.apple.com

 

[SAJ-99]

When New Mexican residents and local orgs voice their concern to commissioners and get commission members to talk about this very issue, they get kicked off the commission by the governor. Or the Gov. getting donations from landowners/outfitters that benefit from this system. That is using political means.

No different than any other state.

I would say when landowners are getting nearly double the $ that the entire NMGF department has for an annual budget, just from eplus elk codes, and they're taking around half the resource they don't own, that doesn't pass the sniff test.

Agree, but that is the market price. Welcome to capitalism.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I'm not sure how you're acknowledging anything.

The system is simple if you follow the money. I am asking you to acknowledge that because landowners are paid (handsomely in some cases) for tags, they are more tolerable of elk. At least they seem that way from here. Read the others posts on this point. You have a growing elk herd in a state that has WAY more elk than it should based on its habitat and climate. This in spite of more extreme climate conditions.

If WY is your example to follow.

Hired guns? Unlimited tags? Wyoming levels up elk killing efforts - WyoFile

Wildlife managers are pulling out all the stops to reduce herd sizes in areas where access issues have stymied hunting and created chronically high numbers.

wyofile.com

The argument that anyone can buy those tags, including residents, so that makes it ok, is a chit argument in my opinion.

There are a lot of aspects to what makes it "ok" or "not ok". That is the debate. Like I have said, I am not saying I like the system or think it is "fair". All I am saying is stop saying 40% of the tags are "given" to NR. They may make it into the hands of NRs through the system, but there is no rule that makes it a requirement. You view it as a 'chit' argument, but it is fact that many have pointed out but continues to be ignored. I can't say why Rs don't want to buy those tags. Economic reasons? On Principle?

 

[sjl2012]

I'm not sure exactly. But these graphics sure make it look like a good chunk of the primary elk habitat is public land. But again, it doesn't matter. The public owns 100% of the elk, regardless of whether or not they're on private or public land. If you don't agree, lawyer up and take it to the supreme court and try and overturn 180 years of case law.

Tribes are sovereign nations. Different conversation and certainly when it comes to case law and statute.

View attachment 327117
View attachment 327118

There are a WHOLE lot of elk in the white areas outside of those shaded areas that aren't included there. Large herds that reside on private property. Those tags are OTC with a ranch code. I am pretty sure those codes are unlimited or very lightly managed due to knowing some smaller ranches that seem to have people hunting them weekly.

Wasn't the pending state record archery bull taken in 17 on a RO eplus tag? There are herds of elk that now reside on those plains and others year round where they used to only migrate in and out. Just because it doesn't look like elk country doesn't mean it isn't, we watched 150+ elk come out of a cottonwood creek bottom 3 weeks ago nearly 30 miles from the nearest "elk habitat". Those maps look more like they only include the areas with large portions of public access.

 

[seeth07]

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I'm not sure how you're acknowledging anything. Just saying it's a benefit without showing the New Mexican public how that benefits them (the beneficiaries of the trust corpus), doesn't add up.

How does it benefit the trust or the beneficiaries?

You are only looking at this from the NM public beneficiary that actually hunts. What percentage of the state do you think that is?

If you walked down the street and interviewed some of the public and asked them if they would support a government incentive program with the goal of putting more elk on the NM landscape that didn't cost the taxpayers a dime, what do you think their response would be?

 

[TOGIE]

If you walked down the street and interviewed some of the public and asked them if they would support a government incentive program with the goal of putting more elk on the NM landscape that didn't cost the taxpayers a dime, what do you think their response would be?

there are many ways to ask the same question that would lead to many different answers from the same individual if asked for the first time.

 

[seeth07]

there are many ways to ask the same question that would lead to many different answers from the same individual if asked for the first time.

Matthew Berry Fantasy Football 101 again. Its why I did the legwork myself with those 2023 numbers. I wanted unbiased, my own raw data to draw stats from.

 

[TOGIE]

Matthew Berry Fantasy Football 101 again. Its why I did the legwork myself with those 2023 numbers. I wanted unbiased, my own raw data to draw stats from.

your sample question was framed with bias.

i think an issue in this thread is an inability by some to acknowledge that both sides have a point.

 

[WildWill]

there are many ways to ask the same question that would lead to many different answers from the same individual if asked for the first time.

Absolutely. But his point still stands. There's a small group of passionate mostly hunters who are opposed. A small group of landowners and residents who are financially benefiting. Then the majority of stakeholders who don't know that there's even a "problem". I'd rather keep a system that works with those vested stakeholders then involve the rest. We've seen how that can go in Colorado. Eplus isn't perfect and especially needs more enforcement in the open gate doctrine but would any be perfect? Some on here act like those NM residents who are passionately against Eplus are the only stakeholders at the table.

 

[Ben Lamb]

You are only looking at this from the NM public beneficiary that actually hunts. What percentage of the state do you think that is?

If you walked down the street and interviewed some of the public and asked them if they would support a government incentive program with the goal of putting more elk on the NM landscape that didn't cost the taxpayers a dime, what do you think their response would be?

Absolutely. But his point still stands. There's a small group of passionate mostly hunters who are opposed. A small group of landowners and residents who are financially benefiting. Then the majority of stakeholders who don't know that there's even a "problem". I'd rather keep a system that works with those vested stakeholders then involve the rest. We've seen how that can go in Colorado. Eplus isn't perfect and especially needs more enforcement in the open gate doctrine but would any be perfect? Some on here act like those NM residents who are passionately against Eplus are the only stakeholders at the table.

The vast majority of Americans do not support "trophy" hunting. You could easily market these hunts as "trophy bull" hunts and see that kind of support plummet.

Similarly, you can ask most Americans what they think about wolf hunting, grizzly bear hunting, etc. You'd be shocked to learn that those of us who support the management of all wildlife through the use of hunting are in a minority. CA, OR, WA, CO, etc are all dealing with this.

It goes back to Randy's discussion on who the beneficiaries of the public trust are, and who the stakeholders and managers are.

The benificiaries are all of us, the stakeholders are resident hunters, landowners and outfitters when it comes to licensed animals.

By broadening the scope of input, you are also opening up the door to have people who are anti-hunting make decisions around licensing.

 

[brocksw]

No different than any other state.

You asked about control of state politics, not whether not this is different than other states.

Agree, but that is the market price. Welcome to capitalism.

This isn't about market price. You stated there was a benefit to putting a dollar value on elk. I'm asking you to quantify that benefit? If you're only answer is that landowners are more tolerable, how much? Again, growing elk populations is proof of nothing.

Also, I have already acknowledged that I suspect that is part of this discussion, I did that in my very first lengthy post in this thread.

My suspicion is that New Mexico just has better and more elk habitat that allows for higher carrying capacity and wider geographic distribution, and not to mention 1/4 of the population of Arizona. Perhaps, what the e-plus system has created is not necessarily habitat driven incentives, but tolerance through monetization of a public resource. Monetization which comes in the form of multiple transferable tags per landowner, unit wide and good on public land in some cases, with little requirement to give anything in return to the public

But again, the disparity between NR and R tags is an issue to most of the NM folks I know of. The tens of thousands of NM residents who go without an elk tag every year might think they're getting a rotten deal. I know I would if I was them. Even if you could say this eplus system is making land owners more tolerant and that is equating to more elk on the landscape by X number (which you can't), what does it matter to a resident teacher who can't afford a 5k elk tag every year? There might be a lot of NM residents who'd be willing to have a few less elk on the landscape and a few less tags in landowner pockets if that meant they could get a tag more often. Instead, Ted Turner gets 450 tags.

You have a growing elk herd in a state that has WAY more elk than it should based on its habitat and climate. This in spite of more extreme climate conditions.

What is this based on? What says that the historic carrying capacity of elk in New Mexico isn't quite high? Perhaps even higher than it is now? I have seen nothing that makes this clear either way.

If WY is your example to follow.

Hired guns? Unlimited tags? Wyoming levels up elk killing efforts - WyoFile

Wildlife managers are pulling out all the stops to reduce herd sizes in areas where access issues have stymied hunting and created chronically high numbers.

wyofile.com

So you're saying that if WY privatized large portions of their elk tags, they wouldn't have this problem? That there is no other variable contributing to this situation? That this is the same problem New Mexico would have if they didn't privatize 40% of their elk tags?

All I am saying is stop saying 40% of the tags are "given" to NR. They may make it into the hands of NRs through the system, but there is no rule that makes it a requirement. You view it as a 'chit' argument, but it is fact that many have pointed out but continues to be ignored. I can't say why Rs don't want to buy those tags. Economic reasons? On Principle?

You're just arguing semantics. Given, purchased, make their way too, fall in the hands of, auctioned, awarded, whatever words you want to use, it is a statistic that is pretty consistent from year to year. It's still a chit argument, IMO. It may be a fact that NM residents are able to buy it, but that is completely disregarding the entire premise of the fiduciary responsibility to manage for the NM resident. Pricing most residents out of the equation is essentially taking those tags away from them.

 

[brocksw]

It goes back to Randy's discussion on who the beneficiaries of the public trust are, and who the stakeholders and managers are.

The benificiaries are the residents of that state, the stakeholders are landowners/outfitters

 

[brocksw]

I decided to dig into some actual real numbers myself rather than read new releases and rely on people here or elsewhere to skew data.

2023 EPLUS list of landowners receiving vouchers from the allocation process:

https://www.wildlife.state.nm.us/download/hunting/maps/e-plus/2023_E-PLUS_LANDOWNER_LIST_PMZ_8_30_23.pdf

I put the data all in a spreadsheet and here are the total numbers. Note that it isn't anywhere close to 13,600.
View attachment 327146

2023 Public draw results can be found here:

Draw Info, Odds & Success Tips - NMDGF

New Mexico’s big game drawing is subject to a quota system. Information found here on how the draw works, draw odds and report summaries, and success tips.

www.wildlife.state.nm.us

22783 total elk tags including the NR allocation and the outfitter allocation.
6961 antlerless tags which are only available to residents. Outfitter allocation pool drew 119 antlerless tags.
20275 went to residents (88.99% of all tags)
921 went to NR (4.05%)
1587 went in the outfitter allocation (6.96% of all tags)
15822 Bull tags. Breakdown is 5.82% NR, 9.28% Outfitter and 84.9% R

Total elk tags = 22783 + 8768 = 31,551.

"Public draw" vs EPLUS = 8,768/31,551 = 27.79% in EPLUS and 72.21% in the public draw.

EPLUS antlerless to Bull tag ratio = 2882/8768 = 32.87%

"Public draw" antlerless to Bull tag ratio = 30.55%

EPLUS RO to UW = 2466 UW and 6302 RO = 28.13% are UW.

1699 UW Bull tags in EPLUS.

That's only primary zone. You're leaving out SMZ, which in 2023 appears to be 6,473 unless someone can correct me.

The data from this report https://www.takebackyourelk.com/ is from 20-21.

According to NM GF data, 38,024 total elk licenses were sold in 2023. So, 38,024 (total tags) - 22,783 (public draw tags including NR and Outfitter allocation) = 15,241.

15,241 - 8768(PMZ eplus) = 6,473 which is your SMZ tags.

 

[brocksw]

There are a WHOLE lot of elk in the white areas outside of those shaded areas that aren't included there. Large herds that reside on private property. Those tags are OTC with a ranch code. I am pretty sure those codes are unlimited or very lightly managed due to knowing some smaller ranches that seem to have people hunting them weekly.

Wasn't the pending state record archery bull taken in 17 on a RO eplus tag? There are herds of elk that now reside on those plains and others year round where they used to only migrate in and out. Just because it doesn't look like elk country doesn't mean it isn't, we watched 150+ elk come out of a cottonwood creek bottom 3 weeks ago nearly 30 miles from the nearest "elk habitat". Those maps look more like they only include the areas with large portions of public access.

Sure. But everything I can find says thats not where most of the elk are. And regardless of what land they're on, they belong to all the residents of New Mexico.

 

[Nm252525]

Matthew Berry Fantasy Football 101 again. Its why I did the legwork myself with those 2023 numbers. I wanted unbiased, my own raw data to draw stats from.

You aren’t accounting for special and secondary management zones

 

[seeth07]

The tens of thousands of NM residents who go without an elk tag every year might think they're getting a rotten deal. I know I would if I was them.

Going back into the 2023 data from the draw odds report and you will see that 69,189 R applicants applied for the 20,275 available tags to them. Overall draw odds of 29.30%.

Does anyone know the resident draw odds overall in Arizona or Nevada?