BHA coming out against the E plus system

[TheWhitetailNut]

Sure, thats an exact comparison here. If you were given a ferrari that was worth 775.00, but sells for a million dollars, but werent allowed to sell it. Would you still use it? or just park it in the yard and leave it to look at?

Only reason most LO's care about the tags are for profit only.

your example is nonsense. I the Ferrari sells for a million dollars, it's worth a million dollars.

I don't care if they are in it for the profit. They have to prove habitat enhancement, and that's the whole point.

 

[WRO]

I was asking the reverse perspective. My understanding is by selling that UW tag the LO opens his/her land to hunters who may have acquired a tag in the draw. I was curious what the quality of their access is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Great in my experience.

This is why I'm a supporter of it, most land owner tag programs offer no benefit to the draw hunter or general tag holder, this one does.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[Stubborn_bowhunter]

I like the system, but dislike the way a lot of people use it.
It's mostly outfitters buying these up, and then running the prices up.

There's more outfitters than ever, so they all have to pay more to fight for the vouchers. Then charge clients more to make up for it.

Residents complain about not getting enough tags, or not being able to afford LO tags because of non residents.
But they don't say much about the outfitter pool tags, or outfitters buying all of those vouchers.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

I like the system, but dislike the way a lot of people use it.
It's mostly outfitters buying these up, and then running the prices up.

There's more outfitters than ever, so they all have to pay more to fight for the vouchers. Then charge clients more to make up for it.

Residents complain about not getting enough tags, or not being able to afford LO tags because of non residents.
But they don't say much about the outfitter pool tags, or outfitters buying all of those vouchers.

Makes sense to me. Would it be possible to maintain the LO tags and get rid of the outfitter draw. Maybe go to a 85/15 or 90/10 split? Maybe the outfitter lobby is too strong.

 

[Whiskey_Fish]

Great in my experience.

This is why I'm a supporter of it, most land owner tag programs offer no benefit to the draw hunter or general tag holder, this one does.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Thanks for the reply, this is a very interesting dilemma. The program does seem to be a net positive. But given the number of total tags flowing through it I could see how some folks might give it a sideways glance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[trophyhill]

The lottery numbers would go up a little, and i just don't think you should be able to buy your way to the front of the line, that's basically my point. Please explain BHA profiting and gaining membership, etc from the tags they're trying to abolish. I appreciate the

Folks that don't let people
I was asking about your stance on public land, you didn't answer... I like libraries, fire departments, public schools, public roads, tax payer funded snow plows so I can go to work, social security, our military, teachers, the EPA, railroads, public transportation, environmental regulations, laws, electrical cooperatives, public swimming pools, tax payer funded boat ramps and parks, public hunting areas, labor unions, fairly elected governments, etc. If that makes me a communist, then okay.

If the shoe fits. As you allude to, there are many in todays America who are "ok" with being a communist. I despise those people......

 

[trophyhill]

I was asking the reverse perspective. My understanding is by selling that UW tag the LO opens his/her land to hunters who may have acquired a tag in the draw. I was curious what the quality of their access is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes i believe you are correct

 

[trophyhill]

Thanks for the reply, this is a very interesting dilemma. The program does seem to be a net positive. But given the number of total tags flowing through it I could see how some folks might give it a sideways glance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That sideways glance comes from a lot of campaigning and propaganda

 

[trophyhill]

Folks that don't let people
I was asking about your stance on public land, you didn't answer... I like libraries, fire departments, public schools, public roads, tax payer funded snow plows so I can go to work, social security, our military, teachers, the EPA, railroads, public transportation, environmental regulations, laws, electrical cooperatives, public swimming pools, tax payer funded boat ramps and parks, public hunting areas, labor unions, fairly elected governments, etc. If that makes me a communist, then okay.

There ya go. You saw i did not come out against hunting public land. It may surprise you that i hunt public land exclusively and the Eplus just solidifies that i can continue hunting public land btw NM is not the only state where LO's get unit wide tags. Its just who's in the news at the moment. Kinda like the flavor of the month

 

[WRO]

There ya go. You saw i did not come out against hunting public land. It may surprise you that i hunt public land exclusively and the Eplus just solidifies that i can continue hunting public land btw NM is not the only state where LO's get unit wide tags. Its just who's in the news at the moment. Kinda like the flavor of the month

Colorado, Nevada, and Utah come to mind, except none of those states have the requirement to let the public hunt the private the unit wide tag originated from as I understand it.

I'm all for public land hunting as well, they're 2 separate issues.

 

[WRO]

Location is Everything for EPLUS

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

www.backcountryhunters.org

This article is why I dislike BHA. It's full of rumor and innuendo, with little fact.

I've personally hunted and scouted 100+ eplus properties, if the gates locked, you just walk across it and I also ignore the private property signs as the ground is clearly denoted on line and its very easy to transfer it to onx. I've talked to several game wardens while there and they've all stated that if there's an issue to call them, and they'll toss them out of the program.

Also you can look online and get a total count in April of who got tags, the amount, if they're uw or private land only and I scour the list and have buddies that send letters trying to buy tags.

I've never seen a piece smaller than 50 acres get a tag. Also in talking to ranch owners, they're checked by biologists to see how many elk they have in the spring. One piece of eplus I hunted in unit 12 had probably 250 elk on it all archery season (2750 acres) they only got 1 unit wide tag. Landowner tags for small acreage are issued in a drawing, not just based on quantity of ground in the core units.

Poachers are poachers and hunting off the reservation a private land only tag is just that.

Taking those away isn't going to get anyone access. Look at arizona, there's still a pile of outfitters that charge alot, and it's just draw tags there.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[Honyock]

This thread is basically the equivalent of locals being mad when "the city guys" lease hunting land and the locals can't find a free place to hunt on private land or afford to lease. Most of the private land in Oklahoma is leased for hunting and you can either find a place to lease and pay the money or hunt what little public land is available. It sucks but that's your choices.

Oklahoma actually has elk in southwest Oklahoma and you can either put in for the draw (once in a lifetime tag in the Wichita Mtn Wildlife Refuge) or pay a landowner to hunt (I'm now on my 28th year putting in for the draw). I was fortunate enough to know land owners that had elk and be able to afford to lease their land. I have been blessed to kill five elk in Oklahoma. I can guarantee you that the farmers in SW Oklahoma would be more than happy to give up the elk hunting lease money in exchange for not have to deal with the elk, hunters and poachers. I've seen elk decimate a 40 acre wheat field and the farmer lost his winter wheat pasture and have seen a lot of fences destroyed by the elk.

Life is not fair, never has been and never will be. As I tell my kids, the fair comes to town once a year, other than that life is not fair.

 

[Gila]

I don’t think BHA understands that there are very few “open gate” ranches for elk hunting if any. Actually, I have yet to find one! I have only found one ranch in the Cibola that will allow hunters to pass through their land to get to the NF. However you can’t hunt there. I don’t agree with unit wide land owner tags. With “unit wide” LO authorizations, the tag is valid on ANY other e-plus ranch in the unit as well as ANY public land ie National Forest and BLM land In that unit (state lands in the unit?). There are a few unit wide LO tags around the Gila.

There is no draw for those tags. The land-owner can sell the tags to the highest bidder. They go for 5 figures around the Gila. Most of the highly sought after tags are bought by outfitters. Those tags have nothing to do with the outfitters pool. The outfitters pool is for public land draw. My own personal opinion is that the unit wide LO tags should be valid only on private land not public lands. Private land owners have succeeded in screwing up pronghorn and deer hunting here, now they got their hooks into reduced hunting opportunity for elk as well. It will only get worse unless a lobby like BHA fights them.

 

[BBob]

Maybe the outfitter lobby is too strong.

NM has always operated as a suspect corrupt state. They (legislature) always seem to sway towards the money.

 

[WRO]

I don’t think BHA understands that there are very few “open gate” ranches for elk hunting if any. Actually, I have yet to find one! I have only found one ranch in the Cibola that will allow hunters to pass through their land to get to the NF. However you can’t hunt there. I don’t agree with unit wide land owner tags. With “unit wide” LO authorizations, the tag is valid on ANY other e-plus ranch in the unit as well as ANY public land ie National Forest and BLM land In that unit (state lands in the unit?). There are a few unit wide LO tags around the Gila.

There is no draw for those tags. The land-owner can sell the tags to the highest bidder. They go for 5 figures around the Gila. Most of the highly sought after tags are bought by outfitters. Those tags have nothing to do with the outfitters pool. The outfitters pool is for public land draw. My own personal opinion is that the unit wide LO tags should be valid only on private land not public lands. Private land owners have succeeded in screwing up pronghorn and deer hunting here, now they got their hooks into reduced hunting opportunity for elk as well. It will only get worse unless a lobby like BHA fights them.

There's no unit wide tags in unit 8 or 14.

 

[Gila]

There's no unit wide tags in unit 8 or 14.

Last time I looked there was maybe half a dozen or so for all of the 16s.

 

[WRO]

Last time I looked there was maybe half a dozen or so for all of the 16s.

There are a few more than that, especially in 16E, but in 16 C in exchange for Land owner tags, you can hunt most of the private in the unit. I think 16B has the fewest in the state with 4 or 5 total.



BBob,

New Mexico is one of the poorest states in the nation.

 

[Gila]

There are a few more than that, especially in 16E, but in 16 C in exchange for Land owner tags, you can hunt most of the private in the unit. I think 16B has the fewest in the state with 4 or 5 total.

View attachment 404860

BBob,

New Mexico is one of the poorest states in the nation.

I meant the number of LO tags available. Yes, NM is a poor state as far as its citizens are concerned. The state gov’t coffers are deep though because of past extraction leases. I also think NM game and fish should charge a percentage of the LO tag sales as a management fee. What do you mean by “exchange”?

 

[BBob]

New Mexico is one of the poorest states in the nation.

For sure and not new to me.

 

[Gila]

For sure and not new to me.

Any state with a high number of reservations are poor....actually just the people on the reservation or close to them are very poor. Many don’t even have electricity. The native NMs also lost some of their land grants. The landowners are wealthy. Los Alamos and Santa Fe have the highest number of millionaires in the country. Same thing in states like South Dakota that have some of the poorest counties in the US because of the reservations.