New Mexico’s super lotto

[WRO]

Is e plus the best system- no
Is e plus system being exploited- yes

From an administrative stand point maybe the e plus system is the lower cost alternative which would add value in the back end of the program. If new mexico is investing those cost savings into other aspects of it's department it theoretically would benefit all sportsmen.

Many perspectives and some less visible than others for sure.

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

Its the best system in the west for allowing public access to private lands at no cost to the taxpayers.

 

[Gila]

You play the victim every time you post up anti-eplus threads.

I am a victim when people troll my threads!

What about the millions of acres of public it opens up in addition to private, with no monetary costs to hunters… you fail to always mention that. Number one best benefit to Unit wide is access across to land locked public.

Those elk are harvested on public lands. Say you drew a quality “Q” tag in a trophy unit for first rifle during the rut from the 6 percent non-res public draw. Say there are 20 tags total allocated for that hunt in the public draw. You go to the landowner list and find that there are 20 tags total allocated as unit wide tags for that GMU. You can bet there will be 40 hunters out there on that quality hunt.

You want a cash lease fine, find out the true cost of cash leasing all that acreage, and then introduce the cost raises to tags via legislation to get that done.

South Dakota raises the license fees to pay for their access to private lands programs. New Mexico has some room there to raise fees. I think selling preference points should be considered however more tags need to be allocated to the public draw for a preference point system to work. There is a rather high cost with administration of the eplus system that would go away. There is room for creative financing here.

How many hunters want to pay hundreds of dollars more for a tag, just to increase hunt codes by couple more Unit wide tags?

Would you rather pay an additional $250 for a non-resident tag or $25,000 dollars for a unit LO tag?

You just want the system cancel and have yet to supply a replacement program with feasibility costs to open up same amount of private and public land.

Actually there are already replacement programs on the table. You make it sound like I am the only one that wants these things. We are very organized, I can assure you.

It’s one thing to cancel something you disagree with but it’s another to actually do the homework for a mutually beneficial replacement plan that’s actually feasible

We have a broad range of support and resources from many different conservation organizations. We will not give in until we get our hunting back.

 

[Gila]

Its the best system in the west for allowing public access to private lands at no cost to the taxpayers.

Says who…how do you know?

Nothing in this world is for free. There is the cost of administration of the eplus program which is huge. The state is paying the landowners with elk the public owns and was paid for by the billions of excise tax dollars that hunters pay. Not to mention that most of the elk are harvested from public lands…those are the facts!

 

[cuerro viejo]

You make it sound like it’s 20 unit wide tags per hunt code, That’s Simply not the case, and you are doing so to gaslight. Be honest with how many tags it is PER hunt code. What’s the average?

I don’t care what someone pays to hunt if they didn’t draw a tag, it affects me financially none, but it did pay for un-restricted access to cross into and through private lands that land lock public, at zero cost out of pocket to me and all the other hunters driving down those roads.

I get it you are the official propaganda arm of xyz… allegedly well organized of course

If you put out real facts and instead of the one sided propaganda you might make the eplus system better but per your own admission that’s not your goal. By your own words will continue to gaslight to get it done.


SD doesn’t have a ton of land locked lock public…. 27 mil acres to 5 mil, substantial difference in size and an amount. Most of SD leases are for upland

 

[WRO]

Says who…how do you know?

Nothing in this world is for free. There is the cost of administration of the eplus program which is huge. The state is paying the landowners with elk the public owns and was paid for by the billions of excise tax dollars that hunters pay. Not to mention that most of the elk are harvested from public lands…those are the facts!

That’s a lot of word salad to say you never lettered in shit.

I’ve hunted OR/WA/MT/CO/ID/NM/UT/AZ in the last decade.

I shot bulls on both my NM tags in E-plus ground.

How much is the huge cost of administration vs the cost of the state paying LO’s directly as a lease?

 

[Gila]

Rather than fighting about landowner tags, I would be more worried about fighting the major anti-hunting movement that is taking shape in NM. Nationally recognized and politically powerful anti-hunting org Wildlife For All is based there and they are fundraising off their victory with SB-005. They were able to rename the agency and limit hunters/anglers to a single seat on the commission. You are gonna need the support of landowners and outfitters when WFA, Sierra Club, Animal Wellness Action, and Center for Biological Diversity all come after hunting and trapping. Jesse Deubel of NMWF is busy making deals with these anti-hunting groups. They are likely to come after mountain lion and black bear hunting first. And when Deb Haaland takes over as Gov you will face the same problems plaguing Colorado currently. Buckle up pal.

For the most part, I think SB5 was a good thing for hunting, fishing opportunity. I didn’t agree with the re-branding because all of that money spent could have gone to landowners for habitat improvement and public access to private lands. I also didn’t agree with the SNAP provisions as I feel that it is a slap on the face and does little to feed hungary children. I would rather the money be spent for endorsing Sportsmen against hunger to make it easier for hunters to donate meat to needy families.

The biggest benefit I see to SB5 was a game commission nominating committee. We need hunters and anglers, tribal members, biologists on the game commission. The private land commissioner should be a resident with family owned farms and ranches engaged in agriculture. I don’t think the private lands commissioner should have any property enrolled in a conservation easement. Case in point is if the NM Land Conservancy is a party, the contract doesn’t allow public access as a default. If the Nature Conservancy is a party to the easement, they may or may not allow any hunting at all. The Nature Conservancy’s position paper states that hunting is only allowed if absolutely necessary. They also state that many of their supporters do not want any hunting at all on any conservation easements.

The last Conservation Conference I watched on YouTube, Jesse was quite clear that he didn’t agree with much of WFA, CBD Etc. positions or view points. However they are part of Conservation Efforts and they are constituents with their own influencers. We (hunters) have to work with them if we are going to have any credibility. We need their support on some issues and in some cases, their goals intersect with ours. We will never get the support of NM outfitters with changing the system simply because the state is handing then profits on a silver platter. About the only way to get their support is if they are happy to recruit clients from public draw tag holders. They already get most of the elk plus tags As well as 10% of the public draws tags. I don’t blame outfitters for that. It’s the state that gives them their tags and clients.

 

[realunlucky]

Its the best system in the west for allowing public access to private lands at no cost to the taxpayers.

Most wildlife department programs are self funded with license sales so unlikely any are costing tax payers money.

 

[Gila]

You make it sound like it’s 20 unit wide tags per hunt code, That’s Simply not the case, and you are doing so to gaslight. Be honest with how many tags it is PER hunt code. What’s the average?

That was just an example. Should be obvious. i have seen and you can go count them if you want to, up to 100s of mature bull tags for a given unit. And most of those tags are used on the first rifle…first muzzie hunts. That should be obvious also.

I don’t care what someone pays to hunt if they didn’t draw a tag, it affects me financially none, but it did pay for un-restricted access to cross into and through private lands that land lock public, at zero cost out of pocket to me and all the other hunters driving down those roads.

That scenario doesn’t happen very often. Most of time those properties have roads around them or through state lands for access to other public lands.

I get it you are the official propaganda arm of xyz… allegedly well organized of course

I represent no one but myself. I have donated to dozens of hunting and fishing conservation organizations. If I feel that an effort is to increase hunting and fishing opportunity, then i donate to that organization….if not I won’t.

If you put out real facts and instead of the one sided propaganda you might make the eplus system better but per your own admission that’s not your goal. By your own words will continue to gaslight to get it done.

Simply because you chose to ignore facts doesn’t mean they aren’t facts.

SD doesn’t have a ton of land locked lock public…. 27 mil acres to 5 mil, substantial difference in size and an amount. Most of SD leases are for upland

Their programs aren’t really leases. Actually they have only recently tried to recruit East River property. Most of the 1.2 million acres of ranch property that has been recruited for public hunting is Pronghorn, mule deer, elk habitat NorthWest and West counties. Most of Harding and Perkins county where the Pronghorn Research Center is. The Pronghorn in my avatar came from a private ranch in Harding county before he enrolled 50K acres in walk-in area.

 

[Gila]

Most wildlife department programs are self funded with license sales so unlikely any are costing tax payers money.

And they get Robertson - Pittman funds from excise taxes for those license sales. Residents pay for the Department’s operating expenses from our income taxes general funds.

 

[WRO]

Most wildlife department programs are self funded with license sales so unlikely any are costing tax payers money.

Who pays for those licenses (we all pay taxes, which tags are licenses are in a sense)? Some programs are funded by Raffles/Gov Tags.

 

[swavescatter]

Giving unit wide tags is detrimental to raising support within the hunting community. As seen with the wide spread opposition to the program.

The majority of hunters would support tags restricted to the confines of the private property as an acceptable solution.

I guess I disagree here. I'm not sure who the democratically elected voice of hunters in NM is, but I don't feel like most hunters disagree with increased access to hunting elk. Also, if landowner tags were restricted to ranch only, the majority of smaller ranches would quickly shut down the access and screw thousands of hunters each season. Those ranches large enough to carry resident herds would be unaffected, because they are more likely to be ranch only already.

In your scenario, the rich get richer and regular hunters get less access.

Again - no system is perfect, but I haven't heard ANYONE share a more equitable and realistic approach.