BHA coming out against the E plus system

[Whip]

It seems like at a minimum unit wide landowner tags should not be valid on private land that is not open to the public. Outfitters buying up tags and driving up prices only to sell them to clients for use on land that is closed to everyone else is a blatant abuse of the system.

 

[WRO]

It seems like at a minimum unit wide landowner tags should not be valid on private land that is not open to the public. Outfitters buying up tags and driving up prices only to sell them to clients for use on land that is closed to everyone else is a blatant abuse of the system.

Those typically have RO tags on them only.

But I could care less because less hunters on publicly accessible land isn't the end of the world.

 

[cuerro viejo]

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.

You don’t have to go through an outfitter to get a hold of a voucher, NM publishes a list. Start calling it’s a free market. Now some of the LO do essentially sell to outfitters so it’s a single source contact and assured to sell.

Its not a stretch to say it’s probably the best depredation/access program in the country due to its minimal costs. The program opens up access to all hunters and is a net generator of 6-8million in tags revenue (per your math). Where as the other side is a min $30 million plus cost factor to lease but most likely more.

It comes back to the hard truths. Do you want private access? Do You want LOs fostering Habitat? You want LO Tolerance for Wildlife? If yes, then there has to be incentives to get there.

End of the day that tag allocation going back into the Resident pool won’t be close to what people think it will be, as there will be a big depredation program for that 600k plus acres.


BHA did a terrible job telling the cost and access truths on purpose, but that’s what they do

 

[Gila]

In Colorado the big money making scheme is that prime elk country (in the migration zones to boot) is bought up by REITS in New York City. This market has got to be huge on Wall Street. Those properties have guides, cabins, camp grounds, posh hunts for sure....Something that only the wealthy can afford.

 

[Stubborn_bowhunter]

You'd be surprised how small most of the properties that pull tags actually are, and how many of them don't actually have elk on them.

I don't think they should kill the system, but it definitely needs to be audited better.

 

[KHNC]

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

My guess is the majority of these landowners dont have elk damage. Hell, I bet a lot of them dont even have elk. I see on the list a guy in 16A only has 40 acres, yet has a UW LO tag for one of the best units in the Gila every year. Sells for 15-20k these days. But sure, I guess thats exactly what that take was meant to be used for.

 

[lintond]

Here in Oregon LO tags are only valid on your property. So if you only have 40 acres it makes it less appealing. Also if you give any of the tags to anybody who isn’t direct family (my wife isn’t direct family) your allocation is reduced. Also if you’re in a unit that has a low quota you’re not guaranteed a tag and go into a drawing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WRO]

My guess is the majority of these landowners dont have elk damage. Hell, I bet a lot of them dont even have elk. I see on the list a guy in 16A only has 40 acres, yet has a UW LO tag for one of the best units in the Gila every year. Sells for 15-20k these days. But sure, I guess thats exactly what that take was meant to be used for.

They have to prove they have Elk and it is checked by a Biologist, does the landowner have Agriculture on his 40 acres (I.E. a pivot), I can guarantee it has water.

 

[WRO]

Here in Oregon LO tags are only valid on your property. So if you only have 40 acres it makes it less appealing. Also if you give any of the tags to anybody who isn’t direct family (my wife isn’t direct family) your allocation is reduced. Also if you’re in a unit that has a low quota you’re not guaranteed a tag and go into a drawing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes and no, tag numbers are only limited on Units below MO or with a small amount of tags. Deer are limited to 10% of the tag total, elk are given typically by acreage. All of the SCR tags in NM are drawn in NM, the only guarantee is the large ranches which is similar to Oregon. The public gets no benefit in the form of increased access from these tags.

Oregons outfitter welfare set up is worse than NM's. We draw outfitter tags and then sell them to the highest bidder, with minimal cost in the process. A big three Outfitter tag sells for 15k plus then guide fees on top of it. At least in NM, as a guided hunter if you draw, you just pay the tag costs.

 

[Extrapale]

If BHA wants equal access to all tags, they should be trying to get rid of the bs guide tag allocation in NM. Leave e plus alone and restore the guide welfare tags to the NR draw. I'd start applying to NM again if they did that.

Yes, I am well aware the state and nobody else cares I quit applying when they implemented that.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

 

[Stubborn_bowhunter]

They have to prove they have Elk and it is checked by a Biologist, does the landowner have Agriculture on his 40 acres (I.E. a pivot), I can guarantee it has water.

They mostly just take their word for it. A lot of the places getting tags are less acreage than that too.