New Mexico price increase.

[Gila]

Onx says otherwise about 50%+ on some of the archery tags I am talking about that I have personally been on and shot 280” 6 points in back to back years.

The outfitter pool is dumb in my opinion as well. EPlus is a bad system too, but how do we reward private landowners for keeping their habitat in good shape if they have 0 incentive to do it. There has to be some level of incentive for them whether that be payments for BMA type access or through some amount of preference for tags that are in units they live in. I don’t think anyone I know is pissed off about landowners getting tags for their own property to hunt on, I think they’re pissed about those properties that are getting those tags and selling them to the highest bidder which is the true issue.

Things are not the way they were…

Take away all of the landowner tags and give the landowner $5-10 per acre. The states that have done that have really opened up some great Mule deer and Pronghorn hunting. Some states have over a million private acres open to public hunting with similar programs.

Elk hunting here is big money and there is some big fraud with little oversight. Some of those E-Plus tags are sold two or three times if the outfitters don’t book the clients. Pay the state a hundred dollars more for a tag or pay a tag broker thousands for the same tag. That’s the difference. Resident and DIY non-resident hunters pay the lion’s share for management of the resource with our excise/income taxes. The back bone of the North American Wildlife Management Model.

 

[elkhunter505]

I got into a wormhole about the gains in funding and calculated some stuff using some assumptions so this is not a true correct number, but this should be in the ballpark. I only looked at hunting licenses and public draw elk, antelope, and deer tags. I assumed that 10% of the outfitter tags drawn went to residents so that likely understates the NR contribution, I only accounted for youth fees when a tag was a youth only designation, and I did not account for veterans or seniors within the tag calculations which likely leads to overstating the revenue of a specific tag. If I had the full data with breakdowns of everyone's information, I could give a better estimate of the true pricing, but this is what I came up with using these assumptions. This gives a ballpark of $1.8 million dollar increase in funding per year when only accounting for public draw elk, deer, antelope, and hunting licenses.



This does not take into account sheep (barbary or bighorn), oryx, ibex, javelina, bear, or cougars, private land tags (I don't have the breakdown of residency for those from the harvest report), hunters who only buy a small game license, (were unsuccessful in draw but kept hunting license), or any of the new shed hunting permits. I am not sure if any of the legislators or any of the proponents/opponents of the bill have done any sort of this type of analysis, but if I would push for the department to put out these numbers so hunters know what they are working with, and then I would push for what you all want to see done with the revenue gains.

 

[elkhunter505]

Things are not the way they were…

Take away all of the landowner tags and give the landowner $5-10 per acre. The states that have done that have really opened up some great Mule deer and Pronghorn hunting. Some states have over a million private acres open to public hunting with similar programs.

Elk hunting here is big money and there is some big fraud with little oversight. Some of those E-Plus tags are sold two or three times if the outfitters don’t book the clients. Pay the state a hundred dollars more for a tag or pay a tag broker thousands for the same tag. That’s the difference. Resident and DIY non-resident hunters pay the lion’s share for management of the resource with our excise/income taxes. The back bone of the North American Wildlife Management Model.

I think a lot of people would be for that model, but are the taxpayers/hunters of New Mexico going to be content with doing that, and are the private landowners going to accept that tradeoff when they can sell tags for more than that? I just don't see either of those things happening without a significant shift in the opinion/climate of New Mexican politicians, ranchers, and hunters.

 

[WRO]

We are the only state that has an outfitter’s public draw…I think Wyoming is fair with 90%-10%. Anyway that is what I would be pushing for. Wildlife belongs to the public. Simply because an elk jumps a fence to take a drink doesn’t give any landowner a right to a tag. Land owner tags are non starters because it leads to privatization. There are some “sleeper” units in Northern New Mexico where a person has a fair chance at a public archery rut tag….nothing near 50% though. There are some late season public cow hunts that have some good odds. Pronghorn and Mule deer hunting is pretty much 4-5 figure land owner tags. It’s getting to the point that I feel stupid for giving the state all of those application fees

E-Plus is an abomination. Holding our public lands for a 5 figure ransom is just wrong.

I’ve shot bulls on eplus ground both times I’ve had tags..

And to say that they only jump a fence either proves you know nothing about elk and private land interactions or your being intentionally obtuse. Many elk never leave private, and they cause allot of damage in many cases. When elk have no value to landowners, they will cry until they’re all gone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[elkhunter505]

The one area that I see that could be a massive gain for public hunters in the state is reallocating the OTC private land deer and antelope tags. Because those are OTC unlimited completely other than in certain spots, it likely leads to the department having to lower quotas quite a bit to account for their uncertainties in how many private land tags are going to be sold every year. However, that could lead to overcrowding on public where people are already complaining.

 

[WRO]

The one area that I see that could be a massive gain for public hunters in the state is reallocating the OTC private land deer and antelope tags. Because those are OTC unlimited completely other than in certain spots, it likely leads to the department having to lower quotas quite a bit to account for their uncertainties in how many private land tags are going to be sold every year. However, that could lead to overcrowding on public where people are already complaining.

They should end those otc antelope tags immediately and go back to managing the numbers, if pay double to see it go back to a plus..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[elkhunter505]

They should end those otc antelope tags immediately and go back to managing the numbers, if pay double to see it go back to a plus..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not sure if BHA or NMWF has put out numbers on that and how many private land tags are being sold in these units, but I can tell you one thing from looking at the harvest reports, it is absolutely astonishing in some units what percentage of the tags are private vs public. They have focused on E-Plus heavily, but that OTC pronghorn system is really really bad for pronghorn populations. I do think a lot of the ranches are primarily using it as an income source rather than hunting for themselves. If that is the case, I think finding a way to do some type of BMA program for private access and putting tags back into the public draw would be a solid compromise to quell both the private and public concerns. I still think that LOs that want to hunt their own land should be able to, but I don't think that they should be able to sell those tags.

 

[WRO]

I'm not sure if BHA or NMWF has put out numbers on that and how many private land tags are being sold in these units, but I can tell you one thing from looking at the harvest reports, it is absolutely astonishing in some units what percentage of the tags are private vs public. They have focused on E-Plus heavily, but that OTC pronghorn system is really really bad for pronghorn populations. I do think a lot of the ranches are primarily using it as an income source rather than hunting for themselves. If that is the case, I think finding a way to do some type of BMA program for private access and putting tags back into the public draw would be a solid compromise to quell both the private and public concerns. I still think that LOs that want to hunt their own land should be able to, but I don't think that they should be able to sell those tags.

A lot of those units in ne are mostly private land, the prior system allowed public land draw hunters to hunt ranches as part of the allocation. The new system is bullshit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[elkhunter505]

I do think the old system sucked since as a rifle hunter, you could not hunt public land. If they were going to go back to that system, that restriction would be a nonstarter for me personally, but I have no say in it anymore.

 

[jkoehle1]

When elk have no value to landowners, they will cry until they’re all gone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe its just my perspective living in the west my whole life. But I think its remarkable people in this day and age will pay big sums of money for a dumpy private land cow elk (see landtrust) - meanwhile the whining about elk and their apparent lack of value has only gotten more dramatic.

 

[WRO]

Maybe its just my perspective living in the west my whole life. But I think its remarkable people in this day and age will pay big sums of money for a dumpy private land cow elk (see landtrust) - meanwhile the whining about elk and their apparent lack of value has only gotten more dramatic.

I’ve lived in the west my whole life, I’ve seen elk damage first hand. Most ranchers dislike elk immensely, they’ll tolerate them for income, but those that don’t participate have large kills done in many cases for no public value. That being said, the damage system is abused a lot by opportunistic outfitters.

 

[Gila]

I’ve shot bulls on eplus ground both times I’ve had tags..

And to say that they only jump a fence either proves you know nothing about elk and private land interactions or your being intentionally obtuse. Many elk never leave private, and they cause allot of damage in many cases. When elk have no value to landowners, they will cry until they’re all gone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That’s an example of what goes on all of the time with small parcels of private that are attached to public. Which is another goat head in the foot. The size of the property. Surprised you don’t know that. Some large landowners get tags for grazed out pieces of dirt with dry streams. No oversight there and no elk. You say you shot bulls on e-plus ground. Do you know that an e-plus tag allows you to hunt public lands like the National Forest and BLM lands? How many elk are shot with these tags on our public grounds and not actually on the private ranch? They don’t ask you in the survey. I have bought e-plus tags before. Never again though. I felt stupid but I wanted to hunt. The state has problems with data transparency for a reason.

We will take back our hunting. Just a matter of time. By the way SB5 is before the Governor for signature. I think they did a good job negotiating the amendments. I didn’t find out about the bill until about three days before it went into committee but that was my fault. I like the way it turned out though. Maybe she will sign this one. Anyone who is a DIY hunter and believes in fair chase on public lands should like this bill.

 

[Gila]

I’ve lived in the west my whole life, I’ve seen elk damage first hand. Most ranchers dislike elk immensely, they’ll tolerate them for income, but those that don’t participate have large kills done in many cases for no public value. That being said, the damage system is abused a lot by opportunistic outfitters.

We should be so lucky in New Mexico.

 

[elkhunter505]

We will take back our hunting. Just a matter of time. By the way SB5 is before the Governor for signature. I think they did a good job negotiating the amendments. I didn’t find out about the bill until about three days before it went into committee but that was my fault. I like the way it turned out though. Maybe she will sign this one. Anyone who is a DIY hunter and believes in fair chase on public lands should like this bill.

She already signed the bill but she line item vetoed the part that insulated the commissioners from being removed by the governor. Good bill, but one of the most influential pieces was vetoed to basically keep the power with the governors office. Real reform would remove politics from both the game commission and the agency itself and they are at the whim of the legislature when it comes to how many jobs they are allowed to have despite being funded by tag fees and not the general fund. The agency is almost autonomous with the way it funds itself, yet they have to follow the policy of the governor. There are biologists and researchers who would speak out on the basis of science but they are not allowed to due to fear of repercussions from an administration. That is the true problem.

 

[roadrunner]

There shouldn’t be any land owners tags. Those tags belong in the public draw. South Dakota solved the problem by giving land owners $5-10 an acre for public hunting access. It works!

South Dakota is governed by a completely different and mirror opposite viewpoint than New Mexico is.

What NM really needs to do is to put those LO tags into the draw with a separate pricing strategy than public land tags.

 

[WRO]

That’s an example of what goes on all of the time with small parcels of private that are attached to public. Which is another goat head in the foot. The size of the property. Surprised you don’t know that. Some large landowners get tags for grazed out pieces of dirt with dry streams. No oversight there and no elk. You say you shot bulls on e-plus ground. Do you know that an e-plus tag allows you to hunt public lands like the National Forest and BLM lands? How many elk are shot with these tags on our public grounds and not actually on the private ranch? They don’t ask you in the survey. I have bought e-plus tags before. Never again though. I felt stupid but I wanted to hunt. The state has problems with data transparency for a reason.

We will take back our hunting. Just a matter of time. By the way SB5 is before the Governor for signature. I think they did a good job negotiating the amendments. I didn’t find out about the bill until about three days before it went into committee but that was my fault. I like the way it turned out though. Maybe she will sign this one. Anyone who is a DIY hunter and believes in fair chase on public lands should like this bill.

I know plenty about the eplus system, and have hunted national forest, blm, and state ground in my nm draw tags, but your condescending isn’t unnoticed.

To get into the draw requires land owners to prove that elk use their property. I’ve hunted all over the west and depending on the season and conditions elk will be in different habitats and elevations depending on those conditions.

I’d rather go elk hunting and if I have to buy a tag occasionally I’m okay with that, I’m not a sell righteous zealot though.

 

[flathead#2]

I have effectively been priced out of Western Hunts.
It's just got out of control, and I can do a lot of hunting
with the money I would have put into the yearly draw cycles.
Already overpriced NR tag fees have just kept going up.
I did /will not apply in NM or any other western state this year.
Simply not worth it anymore.

 

[jkoehle1]

I’ve lived in the west my whole life, I’ve seen elk damage first hand. Most ranchers dislike elk immensely, they’ll tolerate them for income, but those that don’t participate have large kills done in many cases for no public value. That being said, the damage system is abused a lot by opportunistic outfitters.

Ive seen it first hand too. The issues where its chronic represent a zoning issue (recreational outfitting landowner adjacent to rancher/farmer) more than a hunter/landowner problem to solve. Its simply not our fault/problem that 2 incompatible businesses with way different models are setup to cause conflict.

The rub for me - the value of wildlife (access to them), elk especially, has sky rocketed. Have you ever heard less whining since the value of them has went up?

And - it didnt just benefit outfitters. Its hard to imagine a property in MT where BMA payments wouldnt pay at least 5x the property tax i hear is too high.

Ultimately - its all simply a part of the narrative of a powerful politically connected special interest group to get more free stuff and unique rights. Like most other welfare programs - the exceptions get marketed as the rules successfully.

 

[cuerro viejo]

Things are not the way they were…

Take away all of the landowner tags and give the landowner $5-10 per acre. The states that have done that have really opened up some great Mule deer and Pronghorn hunting. Some states have over a million private acres open to public hunting with similar programs.

Elk hunting here is big money and there is some big fraud with little oversight. Some of those E-Plus tags are sold two or three times if the outfitters don’t book the clients. Pay the state a hundred dollars more for a tag or pay a tag broker thousands for the same tag. That’s the difference. Resident and DIY non-resident hunters pay the lion’s share for management of the resource with our excise/income taxes. The back bone of the North American Wildlife Management Model.

as a landowner that has enrolled land in another state’s walk in access program, I can tell you, I have pulled land out due to not being worth the head aches. I sure like to see a state that truley pays $10 an acre, my max was $2

With that said my research shows ranch only tag program is 6.6 million acres and Eplus is +- 600k acres(access). At $10 acre that’s 6million, divided by 36,162 elk licenses. Roughly $185 tag increase across the board to replace etag access. To replace ranch only thats $1800 a tag increase across the board……. For both that’s Over $2000 a tag increase … good luck with Residents paying even 1/2 that uptick which would be a $5 acre lease and $1000 tag increase.

Just etag for residents the same access would up tag from $90 to $275

 

[cuerro viejo]

I know plenty about the eplus system, and have hunted national forest, blm, and state ground in my nm draw tags, but your condescending isn’t unnoticed.

To get into the draw requires land owners to prove that elk use their property. I’ve hunted all over the west and depending on the season and conditions elk will be in different habitats and elevations depending on those conditions.

I’d rather go elk hunting and if I have to buy a tag occasionally I’m okay with that, I’m not a sell righteous zealot though.

What he fails to mention is the eplus is essentially a lease as it opens ranch access to the general public. It’s a no cost to the public for access program vs a massive license increase to do it cash lease vs tag voucher…

Massive tag increase…..