This podcast with @abqbw and Jesse drops tomorrow morning. Great conversation that gets to the core of the Public Trust Doctrine and Trustee duties to the Beneficiaries (state citizens).
You can find it where ever you consume your podcasts.
Take Back Your Elk
- Thread starter Oak
- Start date
You can find it where ever you consume your podcasts.
David58
Well-known member
It is certainly that here in NM. The system has no transparency, and when a landowner sells those tags he/she is not giving the State a cut past the sales tax, so it really does nothing to enhance the herd except through the NR licenses. The amounts of money are ridiculous - and the landowners are making money off of animals that belong to the people of the state. Supposedly that's who owns them.
David
NM
The people of New Mexico do in fact own the wildlife of the state. Same as in every other state. Certainly our state officials don’t recognize that reality even though it is their irrefutable public trustee obligation to do so. They just ignore the most basic public trust principles.
Thanks for taking the time to let us talk about this important topic!
Nameless Range
Well-known member
Bumping this because damn if it isn’t worth listening to
I'm glad you liked it. I wanted to illustrate the point in NM that is so similar in most every challenge we face in wildlife conflict or allocation. If our Trustees do/will not represent the beneficiaries (citizens of the state) and we do not hold them accountable, we lose. Let's win.
Thanks to Brandon and Jesse for taking that amount of time from their calendars with such short notice. Thanks for listening.
wyoelkfan15
Well-known member
Listened to it today, great podcast!
Valley1320
Well-known member
I know what I'll be listening to them tomorrow. Thanks guys!
Just finished and it was an interesting discussion. A Pollack of info thrown out. Some factual or spot on. I do hope it stirs changes in NM. But...or maybe I should keep my mouth shut.
News Flash! Politicians and their appointees are corrupt by nature and they have been enabled. This Gov, is no different than the last 3 I have ignored after their true colors are bare. NM has been the leader in this aspect since 1500.
I have not seen a Mr. Smith in a while. Sorry situation. And I love this state...
That listing info rumor is not quite right...40 ac in 15 and elk tags ....a realtors omission and purposeful mistake. I may be wrong but I have never seen a 40 ac place get 15 tags in the NMG&F website of landowners listings. So...sorry.
My take is obviously biased.
I'm a NM resident, lifelong public land hunter and a landowner now. I was also asked by G&F to enroll in the E-PLUS program 13 years ago when I bought this little bit of heaven I call home. I did. Seen all the BULLL...BS this fine state has to offer. My place has gotten too many and too few . My unit has gone from off the radar, no elks there... to part of the Greater Gila Herd and now to the Fence Lake herd. Whatever that is.
G&F only fully sort of went through a few units the last 4 year meeting time....5 years ago? Mine was one. 60% private 40% public. A few draw tags and way too many, call them LO tags or vouchers and for insanely small or useless places.
Some good changes happened and some same old boy school bs. A bunch of ranches could not meet the basic requirements of the program(Which I asked for the science of several times personally of G&F staff) and cut out , the remaining LO tags were cut in half and the draw exploded. Except for a couple huge places....owned by non residents.
My wish list...
90% Resident in draw. 10 % NR.
NO outfitter welfare. NO OUT OF STATE OUTFITTERS!!!! NO BROKERS!
E-PLUS needs changes. Fully go through all the ranches in E-PLUS in all the units with the same requirements.
Must open access to public lands if in UW.
No ranch not occupied by the LO by a NM resident does not get vouchers.
NR only get 10% of LO tags. ??? Residents get ALL?
Premium/OIL elk tags ,become just that. or a wait period between applications if drawn.
Residents need to pick up the slack if any of this is to happen. Big time.
Me ,I'm hunting my place with a late draw tag this year, again. Gave away 4 tags,3 to local family. My bro has the cow tag, if he shows.
Fully in the Habitat Enhancement program, out of AG exemption,no livestock in 6 years. Spent a bunch on the well and water for wildlife. Fences and gates always need mending.
Now I'm being pressed for more projects,$, spent. I guess the improvements only count for 3 years.
Guess what. I'm done. I am spending my retirement $ working on my home and a shop and trying to survive cancer on my own. 140 ac SCR RO. I do not sell the LO vouchers. I give them to deserving folks. Mostly NM residents.
Take the tags.
I'll cruise the interweb and watch how NM finds a way to fully fund a G&F dept the way it needs to be funded.
15 years ago my county Parks Dept. had a bigger budget than $40 mill. LOL
And I'm watching elk leave my place again this morning with Rio by my side. Off onto the public lands we all get to enjoy.
Have at it....
News Flash! Politicians and their appointees are corrupt by nature and they have been enabled. This Gov, is no different than the last 3 I have ignored after their true colors are bare. NM has been the leader in this aspect since 1500.
I have not seen a Mr. Smith in a while. Sorry situation. And I love this state...
That listing info rumor is not quite right...40 ac in 15 and elk tags ....a realtors omission and purposeful mistake. I may be wrong but I have never seen a 40 ac place get 15 tags in the NMG&F website of landowners listings. So...sorry.
My take is obviously biased.
I'm a NM resident, lifelong public land hunter and a landowner now. I was also asked by G&F to enroll in the E-PLUS program 13 years ago when I bought this little bit of heaven I call home. I did. Seen all the BULLL...BS this fine state has to offer. My place has gotten too many and too few . My unit has gone from off the radar, no elks there... to part of the Greater Gila Herd and now to the Fence Lake herd. Whatever that is.
G&F only fully sort of went through a few units the last 4 year meeting time....5 years ago? Mine was one. 60% private 40% public. A few draw tags and way too many, call them LO tags or vouchers and for insanely small or useless places.
Some good changes happened and some same old boy school bs. A bunch of ranches could not meet the basic requirements of the program(Which I asked for the science of several times personally of G&F staff) and cut out , the remaining LO tags were cut in half and the draw exploded. Except for a couple huge places....owned by non residents.
My wish list...
90% Resident in draw. 10 % NR.
NO outfitter welfare. NO OUT OF STATE OUTFITTERS!!!! NO BROKERS!
E-PLUS needs changes. Fully go through all the ranches in E-PLUS in all the units with the same requirements.
Must open access to public lands if in UW.
No ranch not occupied by the LO by a NM resident does not get vouchers.
NR only get 10% of LO tags. ??? Residents get ALL?
Premium/OIL elk tags ,become just that. or a wait period between applications if drawn.
Residents need to pick up the slack if any of this is to happen. Big time.
Me ,I'm hunting my place with a late draw tag this year, again. Gave away 4 tags,3 to local family. My bro has the cow tag, if he shows.
Fully in the Habitat Enhancement program, out of AG exemption,no livestock in 6 years. Spent a bunch on the well and water for wildlife. Fences and gates always need mending.
Now I'm being pressed for more projects,$, spent. I guess the improvements only count for 3 years.
Guess what. I'm done. I am spending my retirement $ working on my home and a shop and trying to survive cancer on my own. 140 ac SCR RO. I do not sell the LO vouchers. I give them to deserving folks. Mostly NM residents.
Take the tags.
I'll cruise the interweb and watch how NM finds a way to fully fund a G&F dept the way it needs to be funded.
15 years ago my county Parks Dept. had a bigger budget than $40 mill. LOL
And I'm watching elk leave my place again this morning with Rio by my side. Off onto the public lands we all get to enjoy.
Have at it....
Last edited:
Pretty wild to hear takes like this on it. I applied in NM as a DIY nonresident a few times, but the fees now are too much for me to reasonably afford. Sad to hear that the residents are getting shafted even worse than NRs.
I guided a backpacking trip through the Gila this past May, and it was a really incredible experience unlike anywhere else I've ever been. Fingers crossing something changes and government stops doing what it does best...
I drew 8 of 12 times for MB elk as a NR. Some back before outfitter pool. Still cheap tags, cheaper than other states.
Drawn 6 tags in 13 years for elk as a resident. Dirt cheap lic. and tags for residents. Dirt.
There has to be common ground. Ranch lands across NM have benefited wildlife habitat and opportunity. All or nothing does nothing it seems.
There are way more elk than G&F admits too.
Imaginary mule deer it seems.
Last edited:
If you are unable to find the 40 acres Jesse mentioned, during 2021, 314 ranches of 50 or less acres received private elk permits through EPLUS, 253 of these are 20 acres or less, 98 are 10 acres or less, and 25 are 5 acres or less. Finding a small parcel with private landowner permits should not be too difficult.
Right, but how many of those aren't SCRs receiving only a fractional chance at receiving up to 1 tag? That's quite a bit different from a small property receiving 1 tag, let alone more than 1, on a recurring basis. I don't know the draw odds on those SCRs (and I have no doubt they are better than NR
) but to say that "x ranches of a certain size and smaller received tags" doesn't give the full picture if 10x that number had applied for them in a given year, does it?I'm generally sympathetic to arguments against Eplus, but if it's a matter of degree, the actual existence of a 40 acre property receiving 15 tags annually would be clear evidence. Which is why it stuck out when I heard it.
thanks for your response.
Here’s the ad for real estate that Jesse sent to me the day of the podcast.
See. I never knew east of 25 along the Rio was in a unit. I thought it was refuge or another unit.
Lots to discuss...should read ,"Could include tags", as none are for sure even when you apply each year.
Unreal, 15 tags for 43 acres? After we rid the world of attorneys can we move onto real estate agents?
David58
Well-known member
"Public Trust" - in New Mexico? The most corrupt state in the 50? They very consciously ignore the most basic public trust principles. Consciously and intentionally.
David
NM
I would say that is a misprint, typo, or deceit in the real estate listing... or it could have been altered. Several funny things about that listing. It must be pretty old because it isn't listed in any comps for Socorro County. A quick look at the tags in recent years for Unit 13 doesn't show any going to LL Land & Cattle or to the Santacruz's that currently own the 43 acres. Do real estate agents use the fact that properties qualify for eplus as a tool, absolutely. Are they using this ad to promote opposition to eplus in a misleading way, absolutely. I would think that if they thought this listing was real and an egregious misuse of elk tags they would have researched it. If this little property on the edge of San Acacia received 15 elk tags I would think most of the landowners in the SCR would be lined up complaining. From my understanding very few of the small acreages in the SCR receive more than one tag.
I'm not a citizen of the state and in the end will take part in whatever system they come up with to try to get an elk tag each year but an untruth is an untruth and the fact that they're using that ad against eplus is simply propaganda and diminishes my thoughts of their efforts. They should know that ad wasn't legitimate.
I'm not a citizen of the state and in the end will take part in whatever system they come up with to try to get an elk tag each year but an untruth is an untruth and the fact that they're using that ad against eplus is simply propaganda and diminishes my thoughts of their efforts. They should know that ad wasn't legitimate.
