BHA coming out against the E plus system

[WRO]

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”?

I mean in exchange for the landowners getting unit wide tags, we as the hunting public get access to their private ground to hunt. The map above shows in heavy orange outlined areas of public hunting access on private through the Eplus system.

E plus has been in play for as long as I can remember, at least 2 decades.

 

[cuerro viejo]

I hunt thousands of acres that are opened by private access through Eplus ranches. Sad that BHA is against it.

I thinks it’s one of the better systems. Requires public access to pull a tag. You know the exact same thing every one cry’s about with crop depredation tags, that public should have private access. You get exactly what you want which is private access but that’s not enough. Go figure

 

[cuerro viejo]

What do you think the landowners will do when the elk, that eat their crops and compete with their cattle, and no longer have value?

Real simple get depredation permits from Department of Agriculture and then same guys will be whining about their elk being killed on Private land that they don’t have access too. Image that.

 

[slick trick]

so can i just go hunt on Eplus land ? what do you have to have besides a draw or bought tag to have access ? NM has to many different options and rules to figure out and keep up with.

 

[Gila]

As far as I know you just go hunt there. The unit I was drawn for this season has quite of bit of unit wide ranch land that I can (and probably will) hunt. The units I have hunted in the past didn’t have any unit wide private land. You can’t camp there and you can only scout 2 days before your hunt.

 

[Seth]

E-Plus opens 600,000 acres to public elk hunting. That doesn’t count the easier access to many thousands more of public by crossing through E-Plus opened ranches. Every E-Plus ranch I have hunted or accessed had either good habitat or plenty of water, which is a critical, year around, resource for healthy elk.

Sure, some ranchers make some money on the program. In exchange, they get to deal with public hunters and their stupidity. A friend just closed his property to UW after having one of his cows blunted by a public archery hunter. That cost him in vet bills and time dealing with an 8” abscess on his cow.

He also gets to fix fences several times per year, deal with a resident population of elk that outnumbers his cows, and clean up ruts when people drive on wet roads.

While not a perfect system, it is an absolute benefit for the public land hunter. That BHA is against a program that offers public access at No direct cost to the taxpayer baffles me. Especially in a state where state owned land has to be leased by G&F to open public hunting access.

 

[cuerro viejo]

so can i just go hunt on Eplus land ? what do you have to have besides a draw or bought tag to have access ? NM has to many different options and rules to figure out and keep up with.

Yes eplus is public access. Not really that many rules, only private land you can access with out written permission is eplus

 

[cuerro viejo]

Only way BHA supporting this that makes sense, is that BHA doesn’t believe in private property in any form that restrict access. I’m sure the Board doesn’t lock their doors or gates either…..

 

[WCB]

Make LO tags RANCH ONLY! Not unit wide. stop the profit these crooks are making from them!

Crooks? They are obtained legally and if sold or transferred legally, kind of out of line to call them crooks.

BHA is a joke....has always been that way. Let us alienate the private landowners as much as possible when in areas like the SW are many times the main sources of water for animals. Not to mention possibly eliminating large tracts of private land opened up to the public. But I suppose can't expect much from a group who's supporters (many on here) are calling for Eminent Domain on and check board portion of land.

 

[TSAMP]

I've learned a bit about the access the E-Plus program provides in this since my original comment. I think the main hurdle for me is the private sale of big game tags. Which is odd as I wouldn't fault someone for charging 5k for allowing a hunter on their private land to hunt with a state issued tag, But a landowner selling the tag in my mind is to far. I suppose it's the idea they just sold the animal and profited. It crosses my imaginary line of commercialization.

So if the state added the tags to the draw, then paid the landowner for opening up their land to the public via a program, we could in theory solve my ethical dilemma.

I suspect some land owner would be against this as it would likely pay less. And those of you with established relationships getting good deals on private tags would be against this as you would be back in the draw and lose this advantage.

Age old dilemma of have vs have not I suppose. I say leave the tag allocation to the game agencies. Incentivize land owners. The end.

 

[dirtytough]

So if the state added the tags to the draw, then paid the landowner for opening up their land to the public via a program, we could in theory solve my ethical dilemma.

I don't care about Eplus 1 way or the other. But adding the tags to the public draw, then having the game department pay landowners for access is going to cost the department way more money than they will bring in on those tags.

 

[Whip]

It is a bit surprising to me that so many NM residents think Eplus is a good system. It actually greatly benefits the NR hunters of the BHA article is even close to the truth.

22,000 draws tags means the NR portion of the draw pool including both guided and unguided is 3,520 tags. If NR buy 75% of the allocated Eplus tags available that's another 9,750 tags to NRs. Add them together same NRs are getting 35% of the total elk tags in NM. That's more than any other state!

I've used Eplus a few different times in the past. Personally I'd rather pay a landowner directly and go DIY than go through an outfitter. All of my hunting was done on public land. Maybe I should have looked closer at some of the private but in the unit I hunted most of it seemed to be on lower elevation winter grounds. And there was great hunting on uncrowded public land that I was already familiar with.

My own personal opinion is that the BHA article has a good point. Access to tags should not be income dependant. Let everyone have a fair chance at drawing whatever tags are available. Hunting is becoming too much of a rich mans sport and in the long run I think that is going to be the downfall of hunting.

Many other states have programs that pay landowners to open their llamas to hunting. New Mexico could do the same, and landowners who don't want to do that have the option of leasing to outfitters or charging trespass fees. They'll still make their money and we all have equal access to available tags.

 

[TSAMP]

I don't care about Eplus 1 way or the other. But adding the tags to the public draw, then having the game department pay landowners for access is going to cost the department way more money than they will bring in on those tags.

Perhaps, but I think they still will come out alright in the end.

Wyoming had somthing like 80 million in revenue in 2021 related to hunting and fishing license sales. If they want to keep profiting off license sales, they should be incentivized to gain us more opportunities.

Why should we have to fight for opportunities to pay them?

 

[dirtytough]

Perhaps, but I think they still will come out alright in the end.

Wyoming had somthing like 80 million in revenue in 2021 related to hunting and fishing license sales. If they want to keep profiting off license sales, they should be incentivized to gain us more opportunities.

Why should we have to fight for opportunities to pay them?

Is Eplus in Wyoming or New Mexico?

Do you really believe any gov agency is going to somehow balance a budget, make cuts, and open up more access by the cuts they won't make? You are talking hundreds of thousands to open up all the private land that is open from Eplus. Where are they going to come up with those extra funds? Also I believe it is like Colorado. You have to still buy the tag. So there would not be any extra income to the game department from putting those tags in the draw.

Its all well and good to say more tags need to go back to the public draw. But to think the government will pay for access to the private/land locked public is laughable. Then you will also have landowners start bitching about elk. There won't be the tolerance for elk since landowners aren't getting compensated.

Is the private access, public access, landowner tolerance, and more money brought into the poor state of NM worth the loss of tags to the public? That's what New Mexico residents have to decide.

 

[Gila]

So if the state added the tags to the draw, then paid the landowner for opening up their land to the public via a program, we could in theory solve my ethical dilemma.

Yes....and some states do that. One particular state that I won’t mention, pays land owners dollars per acre to open up their land to public hunting. Some of those programs limit the number of hunters on the land at any one time. They leave so many access applications at the gate. You fill them out, put them in the drop box and go hunting.

There is a huge and powerful outfitter lobby for elk. Most of the unit wide LO tags are sold to the highest bidding outfitter or they contract out to buy those tags yearly. The problem I have with that is the outfitters are pulling elk out of the NF and BLM lands with those tags. The bottom line is that more people would hunt if they could afford the tags and have access to good hunting. With the North American Conservation Model, wild game is owned by the public which is fundamental to having public access to hunt a publicly owned resource.

 

[KHNC]

Crooks? They are obtained legally and if sold or transferred legally, kind of out of line to call them crooks.

BHA is a joke....has always been that way. Let us alienate the private landowners as much as possible when in areas like the SW are many times the main sources of water for animals. Not to mention possibly eliminating large tracts of private land opened up to the public. But I suppose can't expect much from a group who's supporters (many on here) are calling for Eminent Domain on and check board portion of land.

BHA is a joke! I have zero use for them. As for LO tags not being ranch only, I think its criminal ethics to get those tags free, for the SOLE purpose of selling them at astronomically inflated prices later. For example 10k-15k each in some units!!! May be legal but not ethical. Those tags are not for that purpose. Make them Ranch Only and most of that crap is stopped. I dont have an issue with them issuing LO tags, but allowing them to sell at Fk YOu prices should not be allowed. Use them yourself or let someone use them on the land you own, or dont issue the tag.

 

[TSAMP]

Is Eplus in Wyoming or New Mexico?

Do you really believe any gov agency is going to somehow balance a budget, make cuts, and open up more access by the cuts they won't make? You are talking hundreds of thousands to open up all the private land that is open from Eplus. Where are they going to come up with those extra funds? Also I believe it is like Colorado. You have to still buy the tag. So there would not be any extra income to the game department from putting those tags in the draw.

Its all well and good to say more tags need to go back to the public draw. But to think the government will pay for access to the private/land locked public is laughable. Then you will also have landowners start bitching about elk. There won't be the tolerance for elk since landowners aren't getting compensated.

Is the private access, public access, landowner tolerance, and more money brought into the poor state of NM worth the loss of tags to the public? That's what New Mexico residents have to decide.

I had wyoming numbers available in memory. Feel free to replace 81 with whatever number fits NM.

I have no doubt the Eplus system was created by government to ease land owner wildlife issues in the easiest way possible. (For the gov). Just because it's the easiest doesn't make it the best. There are other ways to accomplish this is my point.

 

[nphunter]

I'm with WRO, I've never even stepped into NM but live in OR where landowner tags are given out based off of acreage and the landowner can do what they please with the tags. I grew up in NEO and since I started elk hunting in the mid 90's we have easily lost access to over 100K acres of private land in the valley I grew up in due to outfitters coming in and offering big money to lease the land. Now during hunting season they patrol the borders, allow zero access, drive the fencelines keeping the elk from crossing back onto public ground and charge 10-15K for an elk tag.

A system that requires public access in order to get a tag would be a much better option in every state. As I'm typing this I'm looking out my window at about 20K acres that has zero public access, where they get 10+ bull elk tags each year not including all of the draw tags that get outfitted on the property. Talk about the kings forest, over 50% of the elk in NEO are on private property, 95% offer zero public access but still get all of their tags each year and almost all charge a premium to hunt, there are very few families run operations left.

It has been getting worse each year, growing up a lot of the ground was open to the public since the landowners wanted to keep the elk out of their fields, and before a bull elk was worth 10K+ to stoke some rich person's ego. When all the land was open to public access hunters would push elk up onto private ground, the herds would get split up and then they would disperse throughout the units on public ground. Now there are very few elk in any of the easy access areas on the fringes of private and there are thousands of elk down on the private that have never stepped foot on public ground. It isn't uncommon to see herds of 500+ elk during hunting season from the interstate during hunting season laying out on the private ground just above the ag fields. Most of the outfitters have hunters on stands between the elk and the public ground and when someone gets a shot opportunity the elk turn and go back further into the private ground. During archery season you can sit on the border and listen to elk screaming their way up the mountain and when you feel like they are getting close enough you should start seeing them a quad will start up and come drive the fence line to turn the elk around. They aren't chasing the elk just making themselves visable and the elk aware that they shouldn't go that direction, that normally causes the elk to either bed down or turn around and drop back deeper into the private ground.

I'm 100% confident that we wouldn't have these issues is we had a system like NM in place. I would love to see it adopted in every state in the west and have zero idea why BHA would be against it!

This particular unit has about 4K elk so about 13% of the elk in the entire unit are in this one field in a very small portion of the unit. Sorry for the crappy video but it was filmed with an old cell phone, you can still get an idea of the issue. The closest public land to those elk is about 5 miles away in one direction and 30 miles in the other direction. The video was filmed in the middle of archery season, sitting on an overpass on the interstate.

 

[WRO]

Yes....and some states do that. One particular state that I won’t mention, pays land owners dollars per acre to open up their land to public hunting. Some of those programs limit the number of hunters on the land at any one time. They leave so many access applications at the gate. You fill them out, put them in the drop box and go hunting.

There is a huge and powerful outfitter lobby for elk. Most of the unit wide LO tags are sold to the highest bidding outfitter or they contract out to buy those tags yearly. The problem I have with that is the outfitters are pulling elk out of the NF and BLM lands with those tags. The bottom line is that more people would hunt if they could afford the tags and have access to good hunting. With the North American Conservation Model, wild game is owned by the public which is fundamental to having public access to hunt a publicly owned resource.

They do it in Oregon some with the AHE tag funds (gov and raffle), but the smaller properties that were good were swiftly picked up by outfitters.

Where do you balance out private property rights in your equation? Equally private citizens are killing elk on private land they wouldn't normally have access to.

 

[WRO]

BHA is a joke! I have zero use for them. As for LO tags not being ranch only, I think its criminal ethics to get those tags free, for the SOLE purpose of selling them at astronomically inflated prices later. For example 10k-15k each in some units!!! May be legal but not ethical. Those tags are not for that purpose. Make them Ranch Only and most of that crap is stopped. I dont have an issue with them issuing LO tags, but allowing them to sell at Fk YOu prices should not be allowed. Use them yourself or let someone use them on the land you own, or dont issue the tag.

Then how do you propose land owners are compensated for elk damage?

Because the end game in that scenario is ugly whether legal or illegal.

Harschfield sentenced in elk killing case

A long-time Wallowa rancher accused of killing 12 of 25 dead elk found on his and adjoining property

www.wallowa.com

Grant County panel seeks solution to elk damage

CANYON CITY - Cropland owners last week aired their frustrations over property damage caused by elk, as the Grant County Wildlife Advisory Board met to seek solutions.

www.eastoregonian.com