NM landowner tags under fire

[roadrunner]

It’s damned sure not because non-residents get them!!

NM has a good LO tag allocation system, but allocating 6% of total tags for NR draw is silly. Especially when they allocate 4 of the 6% to outfitters. That leaves 2% of total tags for non-resident diy hunters.

At 94% resident allocation, if a resident isn’t drawing a cow tag it’s because they’re only applying in the high demand units.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There are only a small handful of "poor units" for cow elk. The increase in applications for them by "residents" are not necessarily all hunters...

 

[KHNC]

They are the exact same thing. NM is just smarter in its use. Unit wide tags are a three prong program that affords tolerance while also working to improve habitat, and opening up access, at no financial expense to others.

The difference in NC is All residents are paying for those animals to be killed. With no access or habitat requirements.

You just refuse to see it because you don’t value deer the same as elk.

LO Tags Vs Depredation Tags
Landowners Only VS Anyone who qualifies by owning or leasing
Restricted to Open Season Regs VS 24/7 killing by anyone who has them
Can be sold or transferred Vs Can only be used by the farmer or his agent( not sold)
Meat can be retained Vs Meat must be donated or left in field to rot
Unit wide use Vs Restricted to use on property owned or leased


Those are just a few examples. Yep, exactly the same thing.

 

[RS_Non-Res]

NM has a depredation program separate from eplus. It's called Jennings Law. It's pretty much like all the stuff on the right side of @KHNC 's post right above, but no tag needed. Rancher can just have at it, but that forfeits participation in eplus.

I just read on another forum (is it against the rules to post that link?) a discussion about Wyoming's proposal to issue unlimited OTC cow elk tags for certain units that are over-populated and which are mostly private property. Most comments indicate that it won't work b/c 1) all the elk just get pushed onto private land, and 2) $1000 access fees aren't enough to open up ranches to public hunters. Bunch of comments about allowing transferable LO authorizations to open up private land.

 

[Wapiti7]

Has anybody actually put pen to paper? Everybody wants to talk about the Gila. Alrighty then, let's look at two known units, 16A and 16D (please don't bust my chops for unit #'s it is not applicable). Guess how many bull tags (rifle bull or either sex archery) land owner tags from the most recently NMDGF available list (primary zone)? A whopping 20 and 39, respectively. Let's not forget that us residents get 84% of those, outfitter pool 10% and non res DIY get 6%. So, throw out 16A and D from this discussion, as you guys are too way proud to use an outfitter, that means you missed out on 1 bull tag in A and 2 in D (residents get the tag on rounding). Do you really think your app was one away from being the next non-resident to get their app pulled? If so, you should zip it because it means your 2nd choice got drawn (if you halfway put some thought into the draw process). More reference...it looks like your pool drew 51 bull tags in 16A through the draw per the most recent draw statistics. Sweet, you just increased your available tags by 2%.

Your next argument ought to be "Well, CPA dork you are only cherry picking units that have high amounts of public land. It's not apples to apples with high volumes of private land." Well, let's look at a neighboring unit that has more, unit 15. 382 bull tags doled out to the greedy landowners, roughly split 50/50 between unit wide and ranch only tags (note one lucky bastard ranch gets 100 RO only tags alone). Your share of those tags if they went into the draw is 22. There are 1,295 bull tags allocated through the draw, your share is 77. I have no idea how much public vs. private there is in 15, but from looking at onx it looks to be about one third private and I'm sure there is quite a bit more that would be effectively landlocked (without killing yourself). You thought Colorado over the counter was bad, drawing a unit 15 tag will be worse by moving all those LO tags into the draw. And where do you think all those elk are going to go? That's right...to that one lucky bastard's ranch that used to get 100 tags.

 

[Mojave]

Couple thoughts on New Mexico tag problem.

1. Landowners in New Mexico commonly have more land leased than they own. Typically in Wyoming and Montana most land owners have BLM, Forest or state leases equaling 20-40% of their holdings. In New Mexico it is common for landowners to have 5-15% of their land as deeded and 95-85% of their lands as leased. Where they are able they lock up a lot of public lands with their shenanigans. So if you own 2000 acres and have 10000 leased, you are controlling a lot of property.

2. Lands in most of New Mexico are of very low value agriculturally. Animal Unit or AMU's (1 bull, 1 horse, 5 sheep, 1 cow/calf pair) stocking rates in most of New Mexico are 1 AMU per 10-40 acres. Most western states have AMU stocking rates in the 1 AMU per 2-3 acres range. Pushing the cost of ranching, and the demands on lands higher. Incentivizing a program like ranching for wildlife. As where else are these people going to make money.

3. The New Mexico hunting public is not very good at being organized like other states are.

 

[Brooks]

One thing is for certain, the elk herd in New Mexico is second to none and the draw system in NM is the best in the west! We are very fortunate to have our wild game, not only elk but all of our wildlife managed as good as it is.

 

[cuerro viejo]

LO Tags Vs Depredation Tags
Landowners Only VS Anyone who qualifies by owning or leasing
Restricted to Open Season Regs VS 24/7 killing by anyone who has them
Can be sold or transferred Vs Can only be used by the farmer or his agent( not sold)
Meat can be retained Vs Meat must be donated or left in field to rot
Unit wide use Vs Restricted to use on property owned or leased


Those are just a few examples. Yep, exactly the same thing.

lol, you are dense.
They are the same. You are discounting the difference in regulations behind them. Every state has depredation tags, the rules may be different but they are allocated to landowners, to either resolve wildlife conflict or tolerate wildlife conflict

CO
LO vouchers are Depredation tags… example For deer - they are not sex specific unless you change them to unit, then they are buck specific. They are transferable. I use to get a bunch for my alfalfa, before I sold. The revenue was to pay for loses, aka buy tolerance and reimburse losses

Okla and Texas
I get 0-5 LO pronghorn buck tags in two different states. Bucks are property specific. Does in okla are not property specific. I get 2-4 for tags for those also. The Pronghorn are depredation tags, I can sell them. Everyone else it’s once in a life time draw. The Doe tags are non property specific and have a 3 month window, specifically over late winter, I can sell and transfer those also. Again issued to help recoup ag losses, and buy tolerance.

in Okla-
I use to get Cow elk tags for depredation, same thing transferable to recoup loses and or tolerate


In CO, Okla or Texas I didn’t or don’t have to open my land up to trespassing. Like I said NM UW system is pretty smart, since it covers three areas; its buys tolerance, pushes habitat/water improvement and opens/provides up access

 

[Jethro]

NM has a good LO tag allocation system, but allocating 6% of total tags for NR draw is silly. Especially when they allocate 4 of the 6% to outfitters. That leaves 2% of total tags for non-resident diy hunters.

I'd like to hear more about where you got those numbers.

 

[RS_Non-Res]

@Wapiti7 ... The initial split of LO authorizations vs draw tags is based on acres of private land vs public land per GMU. So if there are 50 LOAs and 50 draw tags, then the ownership is evenly split too.

@Mojave ... I thought NM stocking rate was more like 1 AMU per 100 acres?

Public land access is pretty good. Access shenanigans exist at a lower rate than trespassing. I looked at an 1/8-section a few years ago that would have pulled an authorization 9/10 years. It could easily have been hunted ranch only (keep off my lawn!), but preventing trespassing was impossible, so I would have gone unit wide.

Eplus allocations are based on deeded land, not leased. A grazing lease also does not prevent public access. State Trust lands can be locked to vehicular traffic but foot access is open. FS and BLM (elk?) are accessible as expected.

 

[cactus Jack 22]

In New Mexico the outfitters are the ones making all the money. on non resident tags. Its sad that you almost have to exclusively use and outfitter

 

[Undomesticated]

If a landowner owns thousands of acres where he is proving elk habitat for the majority of the year, then he should be incentivized to continue to keep that land in its current state. Favorable tax treatment and tags to hunt and kill animals that he provides habitat for, are a couple of ways.

You guys that don’t own shit and think you are entitled to go out and hunt on their property sound like communists. Go buy your own land, or play the draw game like everybody else.

It seems like a lot of folks don’t understand the eplus system.

The podcast referenced by the OP is a good starting point. Emotional ad hominems like this might get you “likes” on Rokslide but don’t add anything.

Landowner tags in theory are fine. How New Mexico has done it is extreme and has severe implications for the ability of residents to get tags.

 

[yfarm]

Might want to consider the people in the podcast and their history in the state with this issue when you evaluate the veracity of the podcast. One of the antagonists of the current system is a guy that routinely does very expensive guided sheep hunts out of state. Perhaps eliminating lo tags would devalue land allowing others to buy at bargain rates for whatever reason they might have. Look up litigation over the allocation of sheep tags in NM, spent a lot of money to eliminate one nr sheep tag. Are political issues used to drive wedges in communities that result in economic gain for the antagonist or is this simply retribution to someone for a past injury? Had a neighbor that was a litigation attorney that retired, said he was tired of representing 1 of 2 rich guys suing each other over whose johnson was larger.

 

[OKHunter84]

Whining about how much things cost and someone trying to make a profit from their property sounds kinda communist. That's how capitalism works. Whoever has the most resources gets the most.

 

[Reburn]

I hope one day beef actually costs the consumer what it costs to raise. Land included.

 

[Seth]

Let’s examine this another way. We currently have a program that increases carrying capacity through habitat development, conservation, and tolerance. But the cosst of this program is funded by a market based system that some don’t like and mistakenly believe that blowing the system up will result in more draw tags so they can personally benefit.

Let’s look at how NM managed other game species on private. Mule deer, in most units, are OTC on private. Barbary sheep are OTC on private. Oryx are OTC on private. The landowner gets nothing for the tag, no access is opened, no habitat is required to be developed, and I’m sure they’ll provide you free access out of the kindness of their hearts.

We used to have an effective A-Plus system for antelope that opened private ranches up to public hunters. Some people didn’t like the program and they blew it up. How does NM now manage antelope on private? If you’ve been paying attention, you will correctly guess that tags are OTC on private, with none of the pesky requirements for habitat improvement or public access.

Would NM do such a thing with elk? Tags are currently OTC on private in secondary management zones. So if E-Plus goes away, what are the odds that all the previous LO tags go into the draw?

I’m not saying the program is perfect and there are no abuses. I am open to a tweak or two, but it’s pretty solid in accomplishing the goals. Herds are expanding, and it seems everyone wants to hunt here. Please educate yourself on the program and its benefits before campaigning to blow it up and reducing your opportunities.

 

[wapitibob]

It’s damned sure not because non-residents get them!!

NM has a good LO tag allocation system, but allocating 6% of total tags for NR draw is silly. Especially when they allocate 4 of the 6% to outfitters. That leaves 2% of total tags for non-resident diy hunters.

At 94% resident allocation, if a resident isn’t drawing a cow tag it’s because they’re only applying in the high demand units.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You might go back and study up on the nr breakdowns.

 

[roadrunner]

Whining about how much things cost and someone trying to make a profit from their property sounds kinda communist. That's how capitalism works. Whoever has the most resources gets the most.

That's not what Capitalism is...

 

[roadrunner]

...and the draw system in NM is the best in the west!

Sort of.

 

[Brooks]

Sort of.

Most guys are just complaining because they didn’t draw in NM as they always do, but NM doesn’t have a point system everyone has the same chance of drawing and anyone can buy a tag if unsuccessful in the draw. I’ve been putting in for AZ elk for many years and never have drawn an elk tag. But in NM I’ve drawn quite a few. For what I’ve spent on AZ points for 20 years I could have bought an AZ landowner tag if they had them.

 

[wapitibob]

Most guys are just complaining because they didn’t draw in NM as they always do, but NM doesn’t have a point system everyone has the same chance of drawing and anyone can buy a tag if unsuccessful in the draw. I’ve been putting in for AZ elk for many years and never have drawn an elk tag. But in NM I’ve drawn quite a few. For what I’ve spent on AZ points for 20 years I could have bought an AZ landowner tag if they had them.

And everyone has the same chance of not drawing. I've drawn zero tags in NM over the last 20 years, twice in AZ over that same timeframe, and could have upped that to at least 4 if I had expanded my hunt choices.