NM landowner tags under fire

[BBob]

In AZ there is no LO tag allocations. How does that play out? Serious question.

Quite a ways back the cattleman's association pushed for what NM had for landowner tags and the commission said hell no we aren't going down that road. None of the residents at the time wanted to see it either. Keep it in NM and not here. I may be wrong but no one here in AZ gets any sort of compensation for damages. It just is what it is. Some big ranches do charge access fees on the privately owned land. Big Bo is one. I think they do that more to keep the riff raff out and have more rules and restrictions when hunting on that land than the state does. They (Big Bo) implemented no sitting water to keep the fights down and no cameras way before the commission got rid of them.

 

[RS_Non-Res]

@BBob does AZ have anything like the Jennings Law that NM has?
NM law prevents direct payments for property damage.

Also guys, lets not get too wrapped around the axel on this issue b/c the antis use this issue to "divide and conquer." I'll tolerate some abuses of the EPlus/LOA system over having trapping banned or bear and cougar limits decided by city folk.

 

[MattB]

If one was to look at the private land % of elk-occupied acreage in AZ vs NM, they would gain an understanding of why - at least in large part - the states have very different management schemes. It’s comparing apples and oranges.

 

[Legend]

If the landowner wants unit wide tags he has to allow public access to the property. And you have to show you're creating habitat for elk (water, feed, shelter).

Unless your ranch is several hundred acres, you're not getting any animals to yourself most likely.

I'm torn on this issue myself - the elk would just run to private Sep 1 and wait it out if there weren't incentives to keep them spread out.

What if the landowner just wants ranch specific tags? Does it give them a financial incentive to buy more land so they can have their billionaire friends over for a trophy elk hunt with guarantee tags?

If tags are for sale.....you haven't seen the real danger that billionaires bring. It's just a matter of time.

Landowner tags=no access to private land

 

[Austink47]

From the outside looking in it is easy to say this system is wrong, but after living there and actively participating it is a lot harder to say that. Is it not perfect, but it helps a lot of small family ranchers stay in business, has created a lot more tolerance for elk resulting in better conditions for them, particularly on winter range, and gave me an opportunity to put a cow in the freezer most years.

 

[RS_Non-Res]

Intro to E-Plus at Commision meeting last month.
Youtube video should start at about 3:28 (if not, click and drag on your own).
Q/A ends about 4:17 so about 45 minutes.

 

[sasquatch]

What if the landowner just wants ranch specific tags? Does it give them a financial incentive to buy more land so they can have their billionaire friends over for a trophy elk hunt with guarantee tags?

If tags are for sale.....you haven't seen the real danger that billionaires bring. It's just a matter of time.

Landowner tags=no access to private land

Those 750 billionaires in the country, most of who have never hunted, are now killing all the elk?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[swavescatter]

What if the landowner just wants ranch specific tags? Does it give them a financial incentive to buy more land so they can have their billionaire friends over for a trophy elk hunt with guarantee tags?

If tags are for sale.....you haven't seen the real danger that billionaires bring. It's just a matter of time.

Landowner tags=no access to private land

Ted Turner has two 100k acre + ranches here, both holding tons of game. Their prices are actually reasonable, compared to the going rate for Unit Wide tags (I bought my son an Oryx tag last year). They have a sizeable staff that manages everything - cowboys to move animals, maintenance for water tanks, roads, gates, multiple biologists to monitor for disease and population, cooks, cleaning staff, etc. It's a money making operation for sure, but not just some auto-managed private Yellowstone.

There just aren't that many 1,000 acre + ranches where these Billionaires can do what you're thinking, and most would rather make money off it by selling hunts. Maybe they do help themselves to a bull or two a year, but not the scenario you're imagining.

 

[OKHunter84]

I think that it's an important program. The landowners provide habitat, pay property tax and they have to live in New Mexico. Yes the people own the wildlife but they would have no access to the animals on private land otherwise.

It's easy for guys who don't have the money to buy the tags to get bitter. I lease private land for hunting whitetails but I personally don't have the money currently to buy private land elk tags either, while raising a family.

I look at it similar to governor and auction tags. It's insane what they're going for, but they raise millions for habitat improvement.

 

[TheTone]

So having animals is a nuisance and pain to deal with but at the same time they plant stuff and improve habitat to encourage more wildlife to use the property?

I have a relative that tried that double dip once; govt paid for food plot for wildlife right next to his personal planting of the same crop. Then whined and wanted paid for animal damage to his crops

 

[Jimbee]

I think everyone should have an equal or fair chance at a tag at a reasonable price. If a landowner prefers to have less of these burdensome animals eating their forage they can allow folks to hunt with or without paying. I think this would allow people who can't spend $10k to utilize a publicly owned resource.

 

[Brooks]

Reading through these comments I can tell most people here don’t have a clue on how the program works or elk management. I see hundreds of elk every week drinking water and benefiting because of private land. Where I live the elk are thriving and plenty of them.

 

[louisianahunter]

I think everyone should have an equal or fair chance at a tag at a reasonable price. If a landowner prefers to have less of these burdensome animals eating their forage they can allow folks to hunt with or without paying. I think this would allow people who can't spend $10k to utilize a publicly owned resource.

Yeah I've learned there really are a lot of opinions and people who defend the LP tag program for good reasona. But at the end of the day it's a public resource that's being given to the highest bidder.

 

[TheTone]

I’m so happy the hush guys were able to get a hold of a tag so they can use it as a scheme to get you to buy more of their merch. There is a reason you see so many influencers hunt NM and it’s because of the readily available LO tags; everyone else enjoy sitting on the sidelines and waiting your turn

 

[swavescatter]

I think everyone should have an equal or fair chance at a tag at a reasonable price. If a landowner prefers to have less of these burdensome animals eating their forage they can allow folks to hunt with or without paying. I think this would allow people who can't spend $10k to utilize a publicly owned resource.

In theory I agree. In reality, a large percentage of hunters are $hitheads that don't respect game or land (public or private).

If everyone was as respectful as we all pretend to be online there would be no issue. However, I see "hunters" tossing beer cans, crossing fences and taking pot shots while tearing up terrain off trail in ATVs... No thanks!

 

[Jimbee]

Reading through these comments I can tell most people here don’t have a clue on how the program works or elk management. I see hundreds of elk every week drinking water and benefiting because of private land. Where I live the elk are thriving and plenty of them.

What point are you trying to make?

 

[OKHunter84]

If there were only draw tags and no LO tags, we would end up in the same boat. There would be too many people on public and all the elk would head for private. The land owners would sell access to the land.

I understand and agree with the public owning the wildlife, but imagine if owning property offered no guaranteed access to the animals on your property. There would be less incentive to improve habitat for wildlife.

 

[Jimbee]

In theory I agree. In reality, a large percentage of hunters are $hitheads that don't respect game or land (public or private).

If everyone was as respectful as we all pretend to be online there would be no issue. However, I see "hunters" tossing beer cans, crossing fences and taking pot shots while tearing up terrain off trail in ATVs... No thanks!

In my fairly tale scenario, landowners probably wouldn't allow disrespectful shitheads. But they could if they wanted to, I suppose. I mostly hunt private ground by permission. It's a really strong incentive to be respectful.

 

[Jimbee]

If there were only draw tags and no LO tags, we would end up in the same boat. There would be too many people on public and all the elk would head for private. The land owners would sell access to the land.

I understand and agree with the public owning the wildlife, but imagine if owning property offered no guaranteed access to the animals on your property. There would be less incentive to improve habitat for wildlife.

Yes, landowners could sell access to folks who bought/drew a tag. The difference is the tag wasn't sold by a private party to the highest bidder.

 

[OKHunter84]

Yes, landowners could sell access to folks who bought/drew a tag. The difference is the tag wasn't sold by a private party to the highest bidder.

So you don't feel landowners should get tags to the animals on their land? So if you owned 100k acres and you didn't draw a tag, you don't get to hunt?