Take Back Your Elk

[sjl2012]

Had not thought of the landowner tags in exchange for access. I like the idea that if you get a landowner tag, then you'd have to enroll in the "open gate" program. Otherwise, enter the draw like the rest of us.

The point is that the herd is managed by the State, not the outfitters, and almost totally not the landowners. In the context of a Trust agreement, there is no way EPLUS meets the standard.

David
NM

So a question to the comment above "The point is that the herd is managed by the State, not the outfitters, and almost totally not the landowners.".

Does Vidal benefit from the management practices of the rio costilla cooperative and vermejo or do vermejo and rio costilla benefit from vidal? One of the criticisms of the report was unused eplus tags by private ranches. Neither of those ranches convert all of their codes every year and support some of the best elk herds in the state. I disagree wholeheartedly with that statement. They manage the resources for use year after year, to a great extent outfitters as well in most cases. I know there are bad outfitters just like there are bad DIY'ers. That point is agreed to.

Also, I hate to see a great conversation like this drug into the mud with name calling, vulgarity, and trolling. A lot of peoples views are limited to their experience and some just don't have much experience with systems other than leaser/lessee(75% of the country).

I agree the trustees are the primary beneficiaries of the trust but someone has to manage the resource in the trust first and foremost to ensure it keeps providing returns. Several of the models suggested scare me and make me think of unit 9 a few years back, if you convert or move those tags into the public's hands without designating them as "private only will require a trespass fee", you will over hunt the public and push all the elk to the private, thus diminishing the quality of experience.

 

[hank4elk]

Unit Wide Landowner Vouchers have opened up ranches to the public, now that the ranches HAVE TO OPEN & G&F has had to do due dilagence.
But most of the big useful ranches have gone RO, since they get the $ from outfitters anyway.

I still support the program and am in it as a Small Contributing Ranch. My place is for wildlife.
Not for livestock nor the public...too many years cleaning up the mess left by the ungratefuls as a Public Lands hunter and a Park Ranger.

Get rid of outfitter welfare and make it 90/10. Same number should apply to E-PLUS vouchers.

Step up NM and support the ranchers that have enabled us to have the best elk habitat in the west and the best herds.
Or buy another truck & side by side and complain.

 

[Lucky_Lep]

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.

@Big Fin, I've heard you talk about the Public Trust Doctrine a lot, and most recently in Elk Talk # 121, and I have thought about raising the below with you since the FT Weekly # 14, MORE Bulls for Billionaires!?

Disclaimers for all: First, I haven't read all the posts on this thread, so sorry if this is stirring the pot; or regurgitating others ideas - not trying to irritate anyone or insticate anything. Second, there rarely is a single answer that solves a complex problem, and every answer is going to have its own problems (but hopefully no unintended consequences that make the situation worse). Third, not every "answer" should be put in place with the intent that its a forever plan (what worked in the 80s probably doesn't work in the 20s) Fourth, just because "that's the way it's always been done," doesn't mean it always has to be done that way.

Now, . . . I have wondered for a while, why state wildlife managers don't re-Move Public Property (i.e., big game animals) from private property. Examples: if a land owner is complaining of damage to crops by Public Property and gets depredation tags, isn't it easier/less expensive for a Ranger to re-Move the Public Property? Sure, there will be times when re-Moving the Public Property doesn't work/isn't possible and restitution should be made by the Public for the damage caused by the Public Property. But it seems the "Bulls for Billionaires" approach incentivizes land owners to make decisions that maximize their beneficial use of the Public Property to the exclusion of the Public.

Some might say the land owners don't have to allow the Ranger on the property to re-Move the Public Property. A couple of thoughts on that dynamic:

1) the Public Property belongs to the Public. If the Ranger enters the property for the sole and limited purpose to exert the Public's greater right to the Public Property and re-Move the property that belongs to the Public, there are implied easements for this. To the extent damage is done by the Ranger during the re-Moval, restitution should be made.

2) a condition of any restitutionary depredation tag system should/must be that the land owner has not prevented access by a Ranger to re-Move the offending Public Property.

3) another condition of any restitutionary depredation tag system should/must be, for every 1 land owner tag, you have to allow X public tags. Land owners who are "working" their land get to re-sell the public tags; land owners who are NRs or aren't working the land don't and the $$ goes to the state. (It makes zero sense for state agencies to incentivize people with the disposable cash to buy land for the purpose of getting guaranteed tags; where they are the only ones that get to benefit from the public property and the Public is excluded from the use and enjoyment of the same Public Property)

4) finally, to the extent a land owner doesn't want to play by these (or any other restitutionary depredation tag system rules - see disclaimer #2), they get zero tags, and instead are limited to the fair market value of the damage, AND to the extent the damage continues for X period of time and the land owner continues to refuse to take remedial measures, eventually the land owner gets nothing.

Some might say Rangers don't/aren't supposed to remove offending public property. But this happens all the time when you're talking about a predator: bears, lions, etc... Albeit, it is usually at the request/consent of the land owner.

Some other responses might be: Didn't you see where SewAndSo brought this up . . ., see disclaimer #1. Or, what you're not taking into consideration is, . . . see disclaimer #2. Or they tried that X years ago, and . . . see disclaimers #3 & 4.

So, in the name of creating a bigger pie on Public Lands, why not advocate (among many other issues) that state agencies stand up for the Public's Public Property rights? And put the Public Property, back on public property?

 

[MTGomer]

@Big Fin, I've heard you talk about the Public Trust Doctrine a lot, and most recently in Elk Talk # 121, and I have thought about raising the below with you since the FT Weekly # 14, MORE Bulls for Billionaires!?

Disclaimers for all: First, I haven't read all the posts on this thread, so sorry if this is stirring the pot; or regurgitating others ideas - not trying to irritate anyone or insticate anything. Second, there rarely is a single answer that solves a complex problem, and every answer is going to have its own problems (but hopefully no unintended consequences that make the situation worse). Third, not every "answer" should be put in place with the intent that its a forever plan (what worked in the 80s probably doesn't work in the 20s) Fourth, just because "that's the way it's always been done," doesn't mean it always has to be done that way.

Now, . . . I have wondered for a while, why state wildlife managers don't re-Move Public Property (i.e., big game animals) from private property. Examples: if a land owner is complaining of damage to crops by Public Property and gets depredation tags, isn't it easier/less expensive for a Ranger to re-Move the Public Property? Sure, there will be times when re-Moving the Public Property doesn't work/isn't possible and restitution should be made by the Public for the damage caused by the Public Property. But it seems the "Bulls for Billionaires" approach incentivizes land owners to make decisions that maximize their beneficial use of the Public Property to the exclusion of the Public.

Some might say the land owners don't have to allow the Ranger on the property to re-Move the Public Property. A couple of thoughts on that dynamic:

1) the Public Property belongs to the Public. If the Ranger enters the property for the sole and limited purpose to exert the Public's greater right to the Public Property and re-Move the property that belongs to the Public, there are implied easements for this. To the extent damage is done by the Ranger during the re-Moval, restitution should be made.

2) a condition of any restitutionary depredation tag system should/must be that the land owner has not prevented access by a Ranger to re-Move the offending Public Property.

3) another condition of any restitutionary depredation tag system should/must be, for every 1 land owner tag, you have to allow X public tags. Land owners who are "working" their land get to re-sell the public tags; land owners who are NRs or aren't working the land don't and the $$ goes to the state. (It makes zero sense for state agencies to incentivize people with the disposable cash to buy land for the purpose of getting guaranteed tags; where they are the only ones that get to benefit from the public property and the Public is excluded from the use and enjoyment of the same Public Property)

4) finally, to the extent a land owner doesn't want to play by these (or any other restitutionary depredation tag system rules - see disclaimer #2), they get zero tags, and instead are limited to the fair market value of the damage, AND to the extent the damage continues for X period of time and the land owner continues to refuse to take remedial measures, eventually the land owner gets nothing.

Some might say Rangers don't/aren't supposed to remove offending public property. But this happens all the time when you're talking about a predator: bears, lions, etc... Albeit, it is usually at the request/consent of the land owner.

Some other responses might be: Didn't you see where SewAndSo brought this up . . ., see disclaimer #1. Or, what you're not taking into consideration is, . . . see disclaimer #2. Or they tried that X years ago, and . . . see disclaimers #3 & 4.

So, in the name of creating a bigger pie on Public Lands, why not advocate (among many other issues) that state agencies stand up for the Public's Public Property rights? And put the Public Property, back on public property?

Can you take an honest look at the people and agencies managing wildlife in the west and tell us that you think you could put managing all that minutia on their shoulders and get an outcome that is acceptable, and within a budget that is realistic?

 

[David658]

Unit Wide Landowner Vouchers have opened up ranches to the public, now that the ranches HAVE TO OPEN & G&F has had to do due dilagence.
But most of the big useful ranches have gone RO, since they get the $ from outfitters anyway.

I still support the program and am in it as a Small Contributing Ranch. My place is for wildlife.
Not for livestock nor the public...too many years cleaning up the mess left by the ungratefuls as a Public Lands hunter and a Park Ranger.

Get rid of outfitter welfare and make it 90/10. Same number should apply to E-PLUS vouchers.

Step up NM and support the ranchers that have enabled us to have the best elk habitat in the west and the best herds.
Or buy another truck & side by side and complain.

So many broken pieces of the NM system. OnX allows you to see who is in EPlus with unit-wide tags, therefore being required to allow hunters on the properties. In a unit in northern NM, in an area we have hunted often, all of those properties are posted and gates chained and locked.

David
NM

 

[Benfromalbuquerque]

So many broken pieces of the NM system. OnX allows you to see who is in EPlus with unit-wide tags, therefore being required to allow hunters on the properties. In a unit in northern NM, in an area we have hunted often, all of those properties are posted and gates chained and locked.

David
NM

I think the gameplan is we’re taking this to the court of public opinion. Man, if we could get a Netflix out there… see how fast the biological science-based allocation changes. I’d reckon once non-hunters are pissed about the tag system that the next challenger to the incumbent in Santa Fe has a campaign promise that could drive a lot of votes.

 

[Lucky_Lep]

Can you take an honest look at the people and agencies managing wildlife in the west and tell us that you think you could put managing all that minutia on their shoulders and get an outcome that is acceptable, and within a budget that is realistic?

Change is disruptive, which is why most people resist change. (Disclaimer #2)

No change will be perfect; but no change will not build a bigger pie.

 

[MTGomer]

Change is disruptive, which is why most people resist change. (Disclaimer #2)

No change will be perfect; but no change will not build a bigger pie.

Nice motivational ramble. What’s the answer to the question?

 

[Lucky_Lep]

Nice motivational ramble. What’s the answer to the question?

I don't know about every western state, but here in NV -- Yes.

 

[MTGomer]

I don't know about every western state, but here in NV -- Yes.

I could see that. NV is 85% public land and NDOW is pretty good
Montana, or New Mexico, it’s a different story

 

[Treeshark]

I’d reckon once non-hunters are pissed about the tag system

Why would a non-hunter in NM get pissed about the system there? It’s probably awesome from their perspective.

 

[Benfromalbuquerque]

Why would a non-hunter in NM get pissed about the system there? It’s probably awesome from their perspective.

It mean nothing, if the financial loss isn’t highlighted. Let’s figure 12,000 Eplus tags that are given out to landowners for free outside the draw tags. If all of those were made NR tags, sold for a competitive $600/tag, that’s $7.7M lost revenue including State 7% sales tax.

So the commercial would go something like “In Governor X’s administration, elk tags are given away at a loss of $8 million dollars to the State. Suchansuch Administration is wasting honest money paid by hardworking New Mexicans.” Then cut away to crying children being held by their abuelita. And there you have it, Ben’s way to fix Eplus.

 

[Trial153]

I would argue that avg price of those LO tags are probably 4 times that amount and all that money gets put back into the economy of the state. Furthermore the income from those tags allow LO to keep land in its current state vs developing and subdividing.
The Ranch my friend owns has put over 15 million in water infrastructure investment it to, that benefited elk parts of three units. Over 20 million in habitat improvements( fencing removal, invasive removal ect ) over 10 year period. While his LO tag revenue compared to his investment in habitat on his properties is negligible; I question if it would have taken place. This is just one small example of the money being put back into the economy of the state.

 

[Benfromalbuquerque]

I would argue that avg price of those LO tags are probably 4 times that amount and all that money gets put back into the economy of the state. Furthermore the income from those tags allow LO to keep land in its current state vs developing and subdividing.
The Ranch my friend owns has put over 15 million in water infrastructure investment it to, that benefited elk parts of three units. Over 20 million in habitat improvements( fencing removal, invasive removal ect ) over 10 year period. While his LO tag revenue compared to his investment in habitat on his properties is negligible; I question if it would have taken place. This is just one small example of the money being put back into the economy of the state.

So is the ranch open gate, in a conservation easement or getting some other tax benefits from these conservation, wildlife improvements? Because he should, putting all that effort out has serious rewards for those who ask. And what’s his sales tax remittance back to the State?

 

[Trial153]

So is the ranch open gate, in a conservation easement or getting some other tax benefits from these conservation, wildlife improvements? Because he should, putting all that effort out has serious rewards for those who ask. And what’s his sales tax remittance back to the State?

It’s not open gate, the tags aren’t unit wide. He is pretty savvy for sure, I am sure he is utilizing any program that he sees a benefit from and aligns with his goals. His remittance of taxes isn’t my business and if it was I surely wouldn’t share that information.
The ranch is a fantastic place. It’s pretty incredible. And they are great people as well.

 

[Benfromalbuquerque]

It’s not open gate, the tags aren’t unit wide. He is pretty savvy for sure, I am sure he is utilizing any program that he sees a benefit from and aligns with his goals. His remittance of taxes isn’t my business and if it was I surely wouldn’t share that information.
The ranch is a fantastic place. It’s pretty incredible. And they are great people as well.

So let’s say NY was to restructure the DMP, do away with the 50ac minimum and give away 10,000 transferable tags to most every landowner in DMP zones. No preference points, disabled or veteran don’t matter. Anyone can come over, pay whatever to the landowner and plug a deer. Because it’s not property of the Commonwealth. It’s that landowner’s deer by virtue of the free tag that they charged someone to use. If they reinvest proceeds back to the property in a glorious trickle down practice then good on them. If they blow their wad at an Iroquois casino, that’s fine too because it’s not regulated, hurray!

You see how it can feel as a resident where these LO tags exclude shareholders?

 

[Trial153]

So let’s say NY was to restructure the DMP, do away with the 50ac minimum and give away 10,000 transferable tags to most every landowner in DMP zones. No preference points, disabled or veteran don’t matter. Anyone can come over, pay whatever to the landowner and plug a deer. Because it’s not property of the Commonwealth. It’s that landowner’s deer by virtue of the free tag that they charged someone to use. If they reinvest proceeds back to the property in a glorious trickle down practice then good on them. If they blow their wad at an Iroquois casino, that’s fine too because it’s not regulated, hurray!

You see how it can feel as a resident where these LO tags exclude shareholders?

You might have missed it. But every DMP in NY is transferable. So you don’t have to “pretend “. I can sign my DMP over to anyone I want. They are then bound by the unit the dmp was issued.

Furthermore DMPs for landowners are just placed in a lottery pool anyway, you’re competing with other land owners, regardless. You’re not guaranteed a DMP.
Next point is they are all antlerless and quite frankly they have no cash value. Buck tags are OTC for residents and NR.

I see where you’re going but comparing it to NY isn’t a good comparison for the point your trying to make.

Last I checked residents in NM can purchase LO voucher same as I can. I am sure of that because I called in an elk for former commissioner who I hunted with many times. Who’s stoping you or anyone for buying a LO tag? Go buy one

 

[abqbw]

It mean nothing, if the financial loss isn’t highlighted. Let’s figure 12,000 Eplus tags that are given out to landowners for free outside the draw tags. If all of those were made NR tags, sold for a competitive $600/tag, that’s $7.7M lost revenue including State 7% sales tax.

So the commercial would go something like “In Governor X’s administration, elk tags are given away at a loss of $8 million dollars to the State. Suchansuch Administration is wasting honest money paid by hardworking New Mexicans.” Then cut away to crying children being held by their abuelita. And there you have it, Ben’s way to fix Eplus.

Riddle me this. New Mexico has by far more nonresident tags (as a share of the total) than any other western state. Nearky 40% of New Mexico elk tags are nonresident. In AZ for instance only 8% of all elk tags are nonresident. In all the other states except Colorado and New Mexico the nonresident elk tag rate is between 10% and 15% of the total. So how does every other western state have adequately funded wildlife agencies and as good or better wildlife management wo wholesale giveaway of elk tags to nonresidents like NM? According to your logic it should be impossible. The “nonresidents have to have an outsize share of elk or the budget collapses” is a red hearing used to perpetuate outsize nonresident big game hunting opportunity in NM.

It would be very easy to fix revenue losses if NM normalized the nonresident elk tag uptake rate to be comparable to other western states. Heck, it has been 20 years since NM increased hunting license fees. Just raising the nonresident game hunting license fee to match AZs fee of $160 would “buy back” half or more of the nonresident elk licenses for residents. The other half could easily be paid for by an increase in nonresident elk license fee to the high end of other western states. The quality of a NM elk hunt is so high that it makes sense for us to charge at the high end for the license fee. A nonresident elk license fee in NM that is less than an OTC Colorado elk license is insane. New Mexico chokes nonresident license revenue out of deference to the outfitting industry. Game and Fish has private meetings with New Mexico outfitters to get their approval of nonresident tag fees before they recommend the fees to the legislature. It is no wonder that NM nonresident license fees are set to intentionally create apparent dependence on nonresident elk tag sales.

Even more problematic, especially for elk, nonresident tags are vast majority private tags. Well over 97% of all nonresident tags are obtained by privatization. Only 2.8 percent of total New Mexico elk tags are unguided Nonresident draw tags obtained by a nonresident that has not first paid either an outfitter or (mostly) a landowner to obtain the tag. So the 6% unguided nonresident draw quota is effectively a less than 3% quota.

Furthermore, Fully 92% of all nonresident elk tags in NM are obtained by paying an outfitter or landowner. Out of the nearly 12,000 nonresident elk tags in New Mexico, less than 1000 are fully public. Obtained wo first paying a landowner or outfitter.

If NM got rid of the outfitter draw set aside and greatly reduced the number of private landowner tags, and required as a condition for private tags that a certain percentage be public resident only draw (like Colorado Ranching for wildlife and Utah CWMU), I would gladly lobby for the one of the highest nonresident unguided draw quotas in the west. A net nonresident elk tag rate of around 15% would be acceptable to me and lots of other resident hunters I talk to. Currently it is 35%. But I don’t believe this 35% illustrates the NM privatization problem. There is also a high number of privatized elk tags obtained by NM residents too. (Contrary to popular belief we have a few rich residents that can buy their way to better draw odds or to skip the draw through EPLUS tags). In the draw 10% of cow and wildlife management area tags that are resident only by statute obtained by draw are privatized through the outfitter draw set aside. Privatized pay-to-play tags are equally offensive to the public trust whether they are resident or nonresident. On many levels I am more comfortable with a nonresident purely public draw tag than a privatized resident tag.

The figure that is oft cited as an example of New Mexicos favoritism to nonresidents is that 35% of elk tags are nonresident. But this is the wrong metric to consider because it does not account for resident or nonresident pay-to-play.

The metric that captures the grotesque NM tag allocation schemes is that only 55% of NM elk tags are obtained by a NM resident without paying an outfitter or landowner to obtain the tag. In AZ the apples-to-apples comparison is 92% of all elk tags are obtained by an AZ resident by purely public draw. 55% NM vs 92% AZ. In the other western states, except CO, it is in the range of 85% to 99.9% (CA). So I call bullshit on the notion that NM must continue with its current tag allocations or the game department will starve.

 

[David658]

Like most issues we encounter that are on a scale this grand, there is no simple solution. There are guys like Hank that manage their property for elk, and who are not in the game for the money that can be had. But there are far more that are not like that - look again at that 55% figure for resident tags, that 45% represents a whole lot of money outside of what should be they system. And if I wanted to buy one of those guided hunts for myself, I am SOL in many areas, because I live in NM! Many if not most guides will not guide a "local", assuming that the following year we will guide ourselves and our buddies to the same spot.

Because we cannot legislate based on motivation, there is no way to have a system to get tags only to the "right" property owners. We also cannot make overnight changes to the system. But there must continue to be an effort to reward those property owners who do work to better the herd, and at the same time increase that 55% to something that more closely represents the other western states management of the trust.

This is only one aspect of the joys of New Mexico's entrenched crooked cronyism. The gubna just appointed two new faces to the Game Commission, both of whom will be beholding to her and her agenda, which is totally focused on being the biggest little progressive gubna in the nation. Sadly, there are bigger fish to fry in NM, and until that has happened, I hold out little hope for reform in the way tags are allocated - there is simply too much money involved.

David
NM

 

[abqbw]

Unit Wide Landowner Vouchers have opened up ranches to the public, now that the ranches HAVE TO OPEN & G&F has had to do due dilagence.
But most of the big useful ranches have gone RO, since they get the $ from outfitters anyway.

I still support the program and am in it as a Small Contributing Ranch. My place is for wildlife.
Not for livestock nor the public...too many years cleaning up the mess left by the ungratefuls as a Public Lands hunter and a Park Ranger.

Get rid of outfitter welfare and make it 90/10. Same number should apply to E-PLUS vouchers.

Step up NM and support the ranchers that have enabled us to have the best elk habitat in the west and the best herds.
Or buy another truck & side by side and complain.

You alluded to the flaw of the unit-wide part of EPLUS. The flaw as far as balancing incentives to private landowners and the public interest in and ownership of wildlife is that to select Ranch Only or Unit Wide is voluntary on the part of the landowner and only applies to the Primary Management Zone. So the selection of Unit Wide is greatly skewed toward landowners that capture much more private benefit and privilege than the public benefits that accrue in return. If there is great and valuable elk hunting on a ranch (or on landlocked public land within or beyond the ranch) it is not in the interest of the landowner to select unit wide. But if there is not good and valuable hunting access to sell by a ranch only tag, the landowner can select unit wide to convert the tremendous value of the public land hunting in the entire GMU to private cash. This is why only 20% of EPLUS tags are unit wide. Of course there are exceptions where the public receives a square deal from unit wide ranches. But they are the exceptions that prove the rule that unit wide is an especially egregious conversion of what is public to private benefit.

I believe that a big solution to the public inequities of EPLUS could be resolved by making some portion of all EPLUS tags public draw resident only. This is what Utah does with its CWMU and Colorado does with its Ranching for Wildlife transferable landowner permit programs. In Utah between 10% and 20% of landowner tags per ranch must be placed in the public draw for residents only. In Colorado’s RFW program 10% of make and (usually) all female tags are placed in the resident only draw. If you talk to UT and CO hunters (which I have) about their CWMU and RFW programs they are generally satisfied with the programs because they obtain direct but limited hunting access to private land and public land beyond that they might never have otherwise.

There is of course another model that some states use to incentivize wildlife and public hunting on private land. In AZ and MT there are no transferable private landowner tags. Instead AZ and MT provide incentives through open gate programs. Because AZ and MT do not have transferable private land tags there is approx 4 million and 6 million acres of open gate in AZ and MT respectfully. In contrast NM had only 34,500 acres of open gate and about 170,000 acres of EPLUS unit wide.

I am not so naive to believe that NM is going to eliminate transferable private landowner tags through the political process. Perhaps by litigation, but not by the political process. But I believe the public outcry in NM is now great enough that injecting some direct public benefit into the landowner permit system might eventually occur. A percentage of private land tags being by resident only draw might be what that looks like?