Take Back Your Elk

[Alabama]

Let me break it down for you.
Hypothetically I own ten sections bordering BLM and said game animal is standing on my side of the fence, I do what I want with it, sell it, kill it, leave it alone.
If he jumps the fence over where your camped on BLM drinking your Mtn Ops smoothie, he’s all yours. Simple

To throw your words back at you: that's not the way the world works. If you own 10 sections of land next to BLM and 1 of your cows gets onto the BLM, can I sell it or kill it? Of course not, that animal belongs to you. Wildlife that is on your land does not belong to you. Key in on the first part of that word: WILDlife. Wildlife belongs to the state or federal government in the case of migratory birds. Simple

 

[David58]

If Jim Bob is also a NM resident, do the elk not equally belong to him? Not trying to argue, it is a legitimate question I have. Parts of this conversation almost seem to paint all NM landowners as being in the same category as the Non-resident folks. Seems to me that the NM landowners who actually live in NM have an equal claim to NM wildlife, or am I missing something?

Yes, the landowner has rights to the elk on his land, but they should not be simply because he has land. And yes, properly administered landowner tags don't get my dander up a bit. But our current system provides largess to a select group, with most of the hunting opportunities going out of state and to support an outfitter/guide industry that would dry up if not for these tags.

David
NM

 

[TXLonghorn]

To throw your words back at you: that's not the way the world works. If you own 10 sections of land next to BLM and 1 of your cows gets onto the BLM, can I sell it or kill it? Of course not, that animal belongs to you. Wildlife that is on your land does not belong to you. Key in on the first part of that word: WILDlife. Wildlife belongs to the state or federal government in the case of migratory birds. Simple

Lets look at it this way Bama.
It costs money to raise cattle. But cattle are worth money. There are pastures for grazing and pastures for winter hay. Seed cost, fertilizer, pumps to move water either electric or diesel cost money. Equipment to plant it and maintain it cost money and burns money. That WILDlife as you state it, compete with cattle for the same food sources, elk and any other wildlife graze the same pastures, drink the same water. They eat money.
You don’t think a landowner should be able to offset that cost with hunting on his property?
Yes he should. And he should sell it for whatever someone is willing to pay for it. Comparatively the landowner has far more invested in that elk or deer than the average hunter who contributes nothing at all but the small price of a hunting license.

Anyone in NM or any other western state that doesn’t like the arrangement they have is free to attempt to institute change.
But, you’ll have to buy you some legislators, and you’ll find they are Far more expensive than a hunting license.

Thats the North American Economics of Hunting Model.
Its not pretty but thats how it is.

 

[Oak]

You don’t think a landowner should be able to offset that cost with hunting on his property?
Yes he should. And he should sell it for whatever someone is willing to pay for it. Comparatively the landowner has far more invested in that elk or deer than the average hunter who contributes nothing at all but the small price of a hunting license.

He should be able to sell hunting access to properly licensed hunters. He should not be able to sell the privilege of being able to purchase the appropriate license/tag to those hunters.

 

[WildWill]

Lets look at it this way Bama.
It costs money to raise cattle. But cattle are worth money. There are pastures for grazing and pastures for winter hay. Seed cost, fertilizer, pumps to move water either electric or diesel cost money. Equipment to plant it and maintain it cost money and burns money. That WILDlife as you state it, compete with cattle for the same food sources, elk and any other wildlife graze the same pastures, drink the same water. They eat money.
You don’t think a landowner should be able to offset that cost with hunting on his property?
Yes he should. And he should sell it for whatever someone is willing to pay for it. Comparatively the landowner has far more invested in that elk or deer than the average hunter who contributes nothing at all but the small price of a hunting license.

Anyone in NM or any other western state that doesn’t like the arrangement they have is free to attempt to institute change.
But, you’ll have to buy you some legislators, and you’ll find they are Far more expensive than a hunting license.

Thats the North American Economics of Hunting Model.
Its not pretty but thats how it is.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Lets look at it this way Bama.
It costs money to raise cattle. But cattle are worth money. There are pastures for grazing and pastures for winter hay. Seed cost, fertilizer, pumps to move water either electric or diesel cost money. Equipment to plant it and maintain it cost money and burns money. That WILDlife as you state it, compete with cattle for the same food sources, elk and any other wildlife graze the same pastures, drink the same water. They eat money.
You don’t think a landowner should be able to offset that cost with hunting on his property?
Yes he should. And he should sell it for whatever someone is willing to pay for it. Comparatively the landowner has far more invested in that elk or deer than the average hunter who contributes nothing at all but the small price of a hunting license.

Anyone in NM or any other western state that doesn’t like the arrangement they have is free to attempt to institute change.
But, you’ll have to buy you some legislators, and you’ll find they are Far more expensive than a hunting license.

Thats the North American Economics of Hunting Model.
Its not pretty but thats how it is.

The only problem with your opinion of how wildlife should be managed is it is just an opinion that isn’t rooted in law. In New Mexico, wildlife is owned equally by ever resident of the state regardless of where the wildlife exists and regardless of whether a resident is a landowner or not.

You can have the opinion that all elk should live on the moon and it is just as relevant as landowners should be able to manage wildlife on their property the way they choose. They don’t have that legal right.

 

[Alabama]

He should be able to sell hunting access to properly licensed hunters. He should not be able to sell the privilege of being able to purchase the appropriate license/tag to those hunters.

Thanks Oak. My thoughts exactly

 

[David58]

Lets look at it this way Bama.
It costs money to raise cattle. But cattle are worth money. There are pastures for grazing and pastures for winter hay. Seed cost, fertilizer, pumps to move water either electric or diesel cost money. Equipment to plant it and maintain it cost money and burns money. That WILDlife as you state it, compete with cattle for the same food sources, elk and any other wildlife graze the same pastures, drink the same water. They eat money.
You don’t think a landowner should be able to offset that cost with hunting on his property?
Yes he should. And he should sell it for whatever someone is willing to pay for it. Comparatively the landowner has far more invested in that elk or deer than the average hunter who contributes nothing at all but the small price of a hunting license.

Anyone in NM or any other western state that doesn’t like the arrangement they have is free to attempt to institute change.
But, you’ll have to buy you some legislators, and you’ll find they are Far more expensive than a hunting license.

Thats the North American Economics of Hunting Model.
Its not pretty but thats how it is.

And it appears you are willing to shoulder the burden of being forced to hunt under the current "not pretty" system.

 

[TXLonghorn]

The only problem with your opinion of how wildlife should be managed is it is just an opinion that isn’t rooted in law. In New Mexico, wildlife is owned equally by ever resident of the state regardless of where the wildlife exists and regardless of whether a resident is a landowner or not.

You can have the opinion that all elk should live on the moon and it is just as relevant as landowners should be able to manage wildlife on their property the way they choose. They don’t have that legal right.

Oh! Wildlife is owned equally by every resident! I see the light now.

Theres 2,116,000 plus residents in New Mexico.
The elk herd is estimated at 70-90,000

That means you own an Ear. Maybe.

If I were you I’d hunt something I had a bigger share in.
Maybe fishing.

 

[Valley1320]

Oh! Wildlife is owned equally by every resident! I see the light now.

Theres 2,116,000 plus residents in New Mexico.
The elk herd is estimated at 70-90,000

That means you own an Ear. Maybe.

If I were you I’d hunt something I had a bigger share in.
Maybe fishing.

 

[David58]

Done rasslin' with this one - I'm all muddy and he likes it.

David
NM

 

[Gerald Martin]

Oh! Wildlife is owned equally by every resident! I see the light now.

Theres 2,116,000 plus residents in New Mexico.
The elk herd is estimated at 70-90,000

That means you own an Ear. Maybe.

If I were you I’d hunt something I had a bigger share in.
Maybe fishing.

I don’t own jack squat in New Mexico because I am a resident of Montana.

Montana’s Constitution is the same as New Mexico’s when it codifies that all wildlife is owned by resident of the state and managed in trust by the state.

So in Montana I own approximately 150,000 elk, @1,000,000 deer, 1200 grizzlies, and etc… in conjunction with the rest of the state’s residents.

Whether you agree with it or not it is the law.

 

[TXLonghorn]

I don’t own jack squat in New Mexico because I am a resident of Montana.

Montana’s Constitution is the same as New Mexico’s when it codifies that all wildlife is owned by resident of the state and managed in trust by the state.

So in Montana I own approximately 150,000 elk, @1,000,000 deer, 1200 grizzlies, and etc… in conjunction with the rest of the state’s residents.

Whether you agree with it or not it is the law.

Gerald Martin I think you misunderstand my position.
Allow me to explain.
I operate 100% inside the law. As I have previously stated, I play the cards as they are dealt by the respective legislatures.

Comments have been made during this discussion to the effect, landowners shouldn’t be allowed to sell this or that or buy certain tags…..blah blah
But they can. Because its allowed by law.

Outfitters shouldn’t be allowed to do this or that for some reason our another because it benefits their clients.
But they can. Because its allowed by law.

The conversation has become quite convoluted since it started and has lost its way.

By playing Devils Advocate here I have learned alot about the issues at hand and what individuals opinions are, both rational and irrational as well as fact, vs fiction.
The population here is like a cross section of America. A lot of opinions are influenced more by long held beliefs or dreams of how things should be as opposed to how they really are. Thats simply my opinion.
Some individuals have intelligent and well thought out comments. Those are helpful.
Others with nothing intelligent to add to the conversation or lacking in the ability to articulate well, simply resort to name calling. Not so helpful and detracts from the gathering of useful information.

In reality I don’t have a horse in the race nor any influence in the legislatures of the respective states so I wish each citizen luck in his own state.

Overall its been very informative.
Thanks for all the input.

Happy New Year to All

 

[David58]

Gerald Martin I think you misunderstand my position.
Allow me to explain.
I operate 100% inside the law. As I have previously stated, I play the cards as they are dealt by the respective legislatures.

Comments have been made during this discussion to the effect, landowners shouldn’t be allowed to sell this or that or buy certain tags…..blah blah
But they can. Because its allowed by law.

Outfitters shouldn’t be allowed to do this or that for some reason our another because it benefits their clients.
But they can. Because its allowed by law.

The conversation has become quite convoluted since it started and has lost its way.

By playing Devils Advocate here I have learned alot about the issues at hand and what individuals opinions are, both rational and irrational as well as fact, vs fiction.
The population here is like a cross section of America. A lot of opinions are influenced more by long held beliefs or dreams of how things should be as opposed to how they really are. Thats simply my opinion.
Some individuals have intelligent and well thought out comments. Those are helpful.
Others with nothing intelligent to add to the conversation or lacking in the ability to articulate well, simply resort to name calling. Not so helpful and detracts from the gathering of useful information.

In reality I don’t have a horse in the race nor any influence in the legislatures of the respective states so I wish each citizen luck in his own state.

Overall its been very informative.
Thanks for all the input.

Happy New Year to All

2022PrivatizedElk Report.pdf

drive.google.com

 

[sjl2012]

2022PrivatizedElk Report.pdf

drive.google.com

I think this discussion is great but I think most already have their minds made up as to what they think is right based on their experience, the only thing one can hope is to educate newcomers that haven't formed an opinion based on experience.

New Mexico is 43% public, why does that matter? How much of that is elk habitat. How much of the elk habitat is public vs private? Does that matter?

If NMGF is charged with managing the elk herd for quality and quantity, are they doing a good job? Take whether or not you get a tag out of the equation. Have they made changes to allocations, requirements, enforced code?

There are a few ways to manage access to private property
1. allocate tags to an entire geographical unit and divide them between landowners as best as possible with use of said tags at the discretion of the landowner
2. allocate tags to an entire geographical unit and put them in a draw, then allow the people that draw a tag to search out a place to hunt and pay for access. If the person that draws that tag is unable to "buy" access what happens?
3. Give every landowner a "ranch code" and allow them to sell tags over the counter for access, part of the eplus tags are this way that aren't in any of the zoned areas on the map. This idea is CO OTC 2.0 and I've already heard horror stories about it, 6 people hunting a 200 acre ranch at once, not as a party.
4. allocate tags to an entire geographical unit, divide them appropriately between public and private, note the private tags with a P so the drawee knows it's a private only tag then try to enforce that rule during the season. I wonder how many Private only will end up hunting public?

I'm sure there are other options out there and plenty of examples. I always wondered why more New Mexicans didn't use the outfitter pool, especially back when you could pay someone $400 to stop in and see you at camp a couple of days and be within the law. Now that it's $1200-$2000 for 2 days and it's still 90% non residents, that should be a good indicator of the percentages that would be willing or able to pay a "trespass" fee if option 2 is chosen above. Maybe NMGF could make up the difference in lost revenue from NR tags in writing Hunting in the wrong unit, or hunting public with a private only license citations.

The small five is the first bull I killed on an eplus tag in New Mexico in 1998. I guided two hunts for an outfitter in exchange for the tag, unit 57 East of Raton on Johnson Mesa, I paid $750 for the tag, $250 to the outfitter and $500 to the landowner. The last year I did that was 2006 and I paid $250 to the outfitter and $3500 to the landowner and didn't kill an elk. I don't know what those tags sell for now. The goofy horned bull from this year I killed on an UW Eplus tag in unit 53 that I paid a hefty price for. I saw one other hunter while I was in the area I was in and I was back in there. It was worth every penny. I bought the tag from a broker that put $1000 on the cost that he paid the landowner in a unit that is hard and has a very low success rate. If I can afford to do it again this year I will. No apologies, I'm going to find a way to elk hunt by applying in every state and working every angle. I'm not wealthy by any means and am not trying to indicate such, just that I plan and save.

Call it pay to play or whatever you want but the New Mexico resident who the state issued that voucher to benefitted greatly from it and probably doesn't want to see that system changed. Yes that goes against the NAWM but is there a state that a person can hunt any privately owned property they want without paying a fee of some sort, really curios about this? I don't think there's a perfect system out there but eplus benefits the landowner, the hunter, and the game manager. Putting all these tags into the resident draw, the majority of which are private land, isn't going to benefit but a small group of New Mexicans that can afford to pay for private access, in my opinion.

God Bless

 

[Khunter]

Lets look at it this way Bama.
It costs money to raise cattle. But cattle are worth money. There are pastures for grazing and pastures for winter hay. Seed cost, fertilizer, pumps to move water either electric or diesel cost money. Equipment to plant it and maintain it cost money and burns money. That WILDlife as you state it, compete with cattle for the same food sources, elk and any other wildlife graze the same pastures, drink the same water. They eat money.
You don’t think a landowner should be able to offset that cost with hunting on his property?
Yes he should. And he should sell it for whatever someone is willing to pay for it. Comparatively the landowner has far more invested in that elk or deer than the average hunter who contributes nothing at all but the small price of a hunting license.

Anyone in NM or any other western state that doesn’t like the arrangement they have is free to attempt to institute change.
But, you’ll have to buy you some legislators, and you’ll find they are Far more expensive than a hunting license.

Thats the North American Economics of Hunting Model.
Its not pretty but thats how it is.

And there are pastures with corn feeders galore the way texans approach hunting. And exorbitant lease fees to shoot tiny corn fed deer standing at said feeder like cattle That does not mean what Texans do has ANY bearing or in any way informs appropriate and ethical management of hunting access out west.

The ’approach’ Texas leans on as a hunting model seems predicated on the fact Texas has little public hunting ground as compared to demand and an unlimited supply of whitetail and novelty exotics so of course landowner dominance of all things hunting is where it landed. Thankfully the western states have better options and associated responsibilities to manage wildlife for the PUBLIC Good via the Public Trust..


But you are correct, ‘corrupt’ legislators and governors who are of course already bought in NM need to be bought for the right price (or brought to heel via legal recourse) to do their actual duty to keep wildlife in the public domain. If they did their job, landowners would quickly and appropriately shift to a highly profitable model of selling land access instead of wildlife.
Wanna keep outfitter welfare? Great, any landowner can refuse access to anyone not being outfitted. Done.

Lastly, pvt landowners CAN fence out wildlife if they deem them a burden.

 

[Khunter]

Oh! Wildlife is owned equally by every resident! I see the light now.

Theres 2,116,000 plus residents in New Mexico.
The elk herd is estimated at 70-90,000

That means you own an Ear. Maybe.

If I were you I’d hunt something I had a bigger share in.
Maybe fishing.

I resist saying this is a nonsensical and ‘dumb’ analogy, but will say it passes no kind of reasobable sniff test for utility in the discussion at hand that wildlife are held in trust for the state residents.

 

[WildWill]

I call horse

So that means none?
You live in an apartment? or a little lot in a suburb?
You have a 1/10th of an acre “Ranchett”?
Just asking for clarity.
Don’t be hurt.

This is your idea of a "well articulated" response meant to move the conversation forward? Go sell it somewhere else.

 

[lowpressure]

Crazy how few tags actually end up in the diy guys/gals hand.

 

[abqbw]

Yes, the landowner has rights to the elk on his land, but they should not be simply because he has land. And yes, properly administered landowner tags don't get my dander up a bit. But our current system provides largess to a select group, with most of the hunting opportunities going out of state and to support an outfitter/guide industry that would dry up if not for these tags.

David
NM

Landowners don’t have any “rights” to elk or other wildlife on their property. Other than the absolute right to control access to their land to allow or not allow hunting or anything else.

The outfitting industry would not “dry up” without landowner permits and outfitter draw set aside public subsidies that New Mexico provides. Arizona for instance has a very robust outfitting industry with zero landowner permits and zero outfitter set asides. AZ residents obtain 92% of all elk tags in the state through public draw without paying a landowner or outfitter to get the tag. In NM that figure is only 55%. And as I said, AZ has a robust outfitting industry.