2024 Take Back Your Elk Report

[abqbw]

During 2022 the New Mexico Wildlife Federation and others issued the groundbreaking Take Back Your Elk report. This report for the first time provided a detailed breakdown of all elk tags sold by the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish.

The 2022 report covered the 2021-2022 license season.

The 2024 Take Back Your Elk report is out. It covers the 2022-2023 license year. Link below. Sadly, there have been no statutory or rule changes that affect the privatization of New Mexico’s elk. The 2024 report shows the same story as the 2022 report.

The New Mexico Game Commission sets big game rules every four years. The latest rules were written during 2022 became effective for the current license year (2023-2024). During the 2022 rule hearings the NM Game Commission did not reduce privatization by a single big game tag for any species. Out of the tens of thousands of private big game tags the commission generates it refused to make a single private tag public. Instead, the game commission just rolled over the same levels of privatization through the 2026- 2027 license year.

Privatization like EPLUS is authorized by the New Mexico legislature. But the legislature does not mandate any level of private tags. The game commission does the dirty work.

Exposing the Truth About Elk Hunting License Allocation in New Mexico

In 2022, the New Mexico Wildlife Federation (NMWF) and New Mexico Backcountry Hunters & Anglers (BHA) released a groundbreaking report titled “Take Back Your Elk.” Looking at data from the 2020-21 elk season, the report documented for the first time exact

www.takebackyourelk.com

 

[Treeshark]

Sadly, there have been no statutory or rule changes that affect the privatization of New Mexico’s elk.

That’s a good thing. NM has a good system, don’t need to mess with it.

 

[TheTone]

I wish those concerned all the luck in the world; the push back is pretty easy to find and it’s typically from folks making money off the system or using it to get themselves a tag every year

 

[abqbw]

That’s a good thing. NM has a good system, don’t need to mess with it.

Says a dude from WI. lol

 

[Treeshark]

That’s true @TheTone. And the support is pretty easy to identify as well- most often from people who’ve become accustomed to having their existence subsidized by others (see post directly above mine).

 

[David658]

I wish those concerned all the luck in the world; the push back is pretty easy to find and it’s typically from folks making money off the system or using it to get themselves a tag every year

The amount of greasy money flowing through NM politics cannot be outdone. We sit on one of the fattest bank accounts of all of the states, yet 25% of our population lives in poverty. Politicians get a "walking money" handout, to simply give away to patrons. The difference between the "swells" and the rest of the population is amongst the most stark in the country, and once your position is secured that greasy money starts to flow. So, yes, the pushback comes from a thin slice on the top, either making money on the system or getting their trophy hunt every year. We reg'lar folk have no real chance to change the game, unless there is a change in the Governor's Mansion occupant that cares about the citizens of the state instead of the perks of the office.

The two new appointees to the Game Commission appear to be more of the same, so i expect the 25-26 report to look the same.

David
NM

 

[Matthew57]

That’s true @TheTone. And the support is pretty easy to identify as well- most often from people who’ve become accustomed to having their existence subsidized by others (see post directly above mine).

You're talking about outfitters in New Mexico right?

 

[Forkyfinder]

You're talking about outfitters in New Mexico right?

No hes talking about Residents. Devolving into NR pay for everything at R benefit convo.

Its really great to live in WI though, i joke.

 

[David658]

No hes talking about Residents. Devolving into NR pay for everything at R benefit convo.

Its really great to live in WI though, i joke.

The interesting part of all this is that you're missing where the money goes. Instead of a limited number of tags being sold by the state to NRs at a price commensurate with what other western states charge, we see thousands spent for tags that go to landowners pockets. How does that benefit the herd? None of that money goes to managing or benefiting the herd.

The system in NM is unbalanced. It is interesting that everyone I have seen comment on this explaining how wonderful the NM system is appears to be from out of state. Could it be, el Guapo (movie reference), that the porous system in NM is to your benefit as a NR willing to pay?

David
NM

 

[seeth07]

None of that money goes to managing or benefiting the herd.

Don't you have to be in a program with habitat to get the tags though and you get scored to determine the level of tags you get? I thought I saw @hank4elk at one point share this with us. I was under the understanding that you can't just have acreage to get into EPLUS but need to have a wildlife benefit on that acreage.

 

[Forkyfinder]

The interesting part of all this is that you're missing where the money goes. Instead of a limited number of tags being sold by the state to NRs at a price commensurate with what other western states charge, we see thousands spent for tags that go to landowners pockets. How does that benefit the herd? None of that money goes to managing or benefiting the herd.

The system in NM is unbalanced. It is interesting that everyone I have seen comment on this explaining how wonderful the NM system is appears to be from out of state. Could it be, el Guapo (movie reference), that the porous system in NM is to your benefit as a NR willing to pay?

David
NM

No - i think its terrible - and im confused why its that way in the state. Severe detriment to R - who are the beneficaries of the states management of game. Id be mad as hell if i lived there in many ways.

@Treeshark is the one you need to talk to! Id never drive past Wyoming out of Montana to go hunt NM at this point.

 

[WildWill]

The interesting part of all this is that you're missing where the money goes. Instead of a limited number of tags being sold by the state to NRs at a price commensurate with what other western states charge, we see thousands spent for tags that go to landowners pockets. How does that benefit the herd? None of that money goes to managing or benefiting the herd.

The system in NM is unbalanced. It is interesting that everyone I have seen comment on this explaining how wonderful the NM system is appears to be from out of state. Could it be, el Guapo (movie reference), that the porous system in NM is to your benefit as a NR willing to pay?

David
NM

It's disingenuous to say none of that money goes back into the herd. Many landowners spend plenty of time and money on habitat improvement for wildlife. Just like some are completely abusing the system. And so we're clear I've never bought a landowner tag in any state much less NM. The two tags I've been lucky enough to get in NM came from the 6% unguided NR pool. There maybe a need for more oversight of landowner tags but don't feel I have enough info to comment on that.

 

[David658]

It's disingenuous to say none of that money goes back into the herd. Many landowners spend plenty of time and money on habitat improvement for wildlife. Just like some are completely abusing the system. And so we're clear I've never bought a landowner tag in any state much less NM. The two tags I've been lucky enough to get in NM came from the 6% unguided NR pool. There maybe a need for more oversight of landowner tags but don't feel I have enough info to comment on that.

Not disingenuous. If a landowner gets $5K for a tag, what of that money goes to support the herd? Somewhere between zero and something, but definitely below $5K.

Don't for a minute think that $5K is a high price, they can go for much more. Again, NMDGF sees none of that, just the license and tag fees collected on top of that.

Hank is an exceptional landowner. Not many do the work he does for habitat, and to do so he should be reimbursed in some fashion - in this system today, it is tags. The system today, however, ends up being severely skewed to benefit the high-dollar-capable nonresident, rather than the residents the herd is supposedly held in trust for.

Curiously, the only folks I have noticed here defending the NM system are NM nonresidents.

David
NM

 

[bulldawg10]

Don't you have to be in a program with habitat to get the tags though and you get scored to determine the level of tags you get? I thought I saw @hank4elk at one point share this with us. I was under the understanding that you can't just have acreage to get into EPLUS but need to have a wildlife benefit on that acreage.

That would be correct. The land first needs to be in the primary zone. Then it is scored to see of it can reach a miminum score of 7. That is a mixture or water, forage, cover and a few other things.

The EPLUS program is really sound in how it encourages landowners to do things to increase their property score and also a habitat incentive program. A huge one is adding water. Comparing NM to most other elk states is usually a terrible comparison as those other states do not need landowners developing waters to support wildlife how NM needs it.

The number of tags in the landowner pool vs the public draw pool is correlated to the breakdown of private land vs public land vs elk habitat and herds on that land.

Some units have little to no private land and almost all tags are in the public draw. Some units are primarily privately owned and these have a lot of tags going to land owners....makes sense. About 50% of NM elk habitat is private land.

Landowners choose to be Unitwide or Ranch Only each year. The value of the tag authorizations definitely encourages landowners to do projects to increase ranch scores and get habitat incentives...which creates habitat and supports greater elk herds. The vast majority of NM ranches choose to go Ranch Only, but Unitwide Ranches open up approx 600,000 acres of private land to all public land hunters...not just those that know the landowner or can afford trespass fees, ALL legal public land tag holders benefit. This is massively overlook and downplayed by these groups like NMWF and BHA.

Additionally unitwide ranches at times, unlock landlocked public lands too.

The EPLUS program also creates additional opportunities to hunt, outside of relying strickly on luck. EPLUS gives everyone the opportunity to buy a tag, if they didn't draw. It also give everyone the option to buy land, develop it, benefit the elk herd, and get tags that way too.

NM land isn't expensive in some areas, but they will make it seem like a rich man's game...much of it, average means can get you in the game.

Because of the points systems and habitat incentives, Landowners in the program are doing a massive percentage of the work/cost needed to support and grow elk herds. What are resident draw only hunters doing to support elk, outside of throwing a few bucks in a draw, when compared to landowners?...99% of resident draw hunters do nothing in comparison to those truly supporting elk, landowners.

EPLUS is a strong program and not what these guys make it out to be...the vast majority of tag authorization start off in the hands of NM landowners. They fail to mention that part fairly often too....most are originally issued to NM residents.

I personally feel the far better option would be not to try and destroy EPLUS like BHA and NMWF tries to do....but instead, lets try and go from 15% of ranches being Unitwide to 70, 80, 90%.

That would open up massive hunting opportunities to all public land tag hunters...on Private Ground, increase public land access or unlock landlocked public lands and have no cost to NM.

The mechanism to do this already exists in EPLUS...give Unitwide properties bonuses or higher scores for being Unitwide. Then more landowners will naturally choose the Unitwide option, unlocking more hunting opportunities for everyone.

 

[Archer86]

That’s true @TheTone. And the support is pretty easy to identify as well- most often from people who’ve become accustomed to having their existence subsidized by others (see post directly above mine).

You must be referring to nr hunters being subsidized by the other 99 percent of the country so they can have set aside tags in everystate when only 1 percent of the country are nr hunters its funny to see a nr hunters complaining about who is getting subsidized...haha

 

[rustednuts]

That would be correct. The land first needs to be in the primary zone. Then it is scored to see of it can reach a miminum score of 7. That is a mixture or water, forage, cover and a few other things.

The EPLUS program is really sound in how it encourages landowners to do things to increase their property score and also a habitat incentive program. A huge one is adding water. Comparing NM to most other elk states is usually a terrible comparison as those other states do not need landowners developing waters to support wildlife how NM needs it.

The number of tags in the landowner pool vs the public draw pool is correlated to the breakdown of private land vs public land vs elk habitat and herds on that land.

Some units have little to no private land and almost all tags are in the public draw. Some units are primarily privately owned and these have a lot of tags going to land owners....makes sense. About 50% of NM elk habitat is private land.

Landowners choose to be Unitwide or Ranch Only each year. The value of the tag authorizations definitely encourages landowners to do projects to increase ranch scores and get habitat incentives...which creates habitat and supports greater elk herds. The vast majority of NM ranches choose to go Ranch Only, but Unitwide Ranches open up approx 600,000 acres of private land to all public land hunters...not just those that know the landowner or can afford trespass fees, ALL legal public land tag holders benefit. This is massively overlook and downplayed by these groups like NMWF and BHA.

Additionally unitwide ranches at times, unlock landlocked public lands too.

The EPLUS program also creates additional opportunities to hunt, outside of relying strickly on luck. EPLUS gives everyone the opportunity to buy a tag, if they didn't draw. It also give everyone the option to buy land, develop it, benefit the elk herd, and get tags that way too.

NM land isn't expensive in some areas, but they will make it seem like a rich man's game...much of it, average means can get you in the game.

Because of the points systems and habitat incentives, Landowners in the program are doing a massive percentage of the work/cost needed to support and grow elk herds. What are residents doing to support elk, outside of throwing a few bucks in a draw, when compared to landowners...99% of residents do nothing in comparison to those truly supporting elk.

EPLUS is a strong program and not what these guys make it out to be...the vast majority of tag authorization start off in the hands of NM landowners. They fail to mention that part fairly often too....most are originally issued to NM residents.

I personally feel the far better option would be not to try and destroy EPLUS like BHA and NMWF tries to do....but instead, lets try and go from 15% of ranches being Unitwide to 70, 80, 90%.

That would open up massive hunting opportunities to all public land tag hunters...on Private Ground, increase public land access or unlock landlocked public lands and have no cost to NM.

The mechanism to do this already exists in EPLUS...give Unitwide properties bonuses or higher scores for being Unitwide. Then more landowners will naturally choose the Unitwide option, unlocking more hunting opportunities for everyone.

I appreciate the thoughtfulness of this response. Yes Eplus gives opportunities beyond luck but only to those that can afford to skip the luck line and buy tags. This ultimately hurts resident hunters the most. I support that the idea that if you get a land owner tag it has to be unit wide.

 

[wyflyguy]

I haven't ever used or looked into the EPLUS system very much. This thread has been enlightening.

One of my issues with this issue is this stance

The system today, however, ends up being severely skewed to benefit the high-dollar-capable nonresident, rather than the residents the herd is supposedly held in trust for.

My understanding is that EPLUS is open to EVERYBODY. That means a resident is just as able to purchase a landowner tag as a non-resident. To say that the system is skewed towards those willing and able to pay a premium for elk tags is an argument that I can see. I just don't see the point in pitting residents against nonresidents here.

Also, what is the proposed solution? Presumably, the goal as stated is to give fewer tags to the landowners and put those tags into the public draw (more public, less private). Okay, but if the elk are on private land that the public cannot access, how does that help anything? More pressure and more people on the public lands that we hunt. I don't get it.

I think I agree with bulldawg87 above. Making more of the private land tags unit wide (and, thus, opening the lands held by those receiving tags to hunting by the general public) seems to benefit everyone while still recognizing the landowners for their efforts to improve habitat.

 

[bulldawg10]

I appreciate the thoughtfulness of this response. Yes Eplus gives opportunities beyond luck but only to those that can afford to skip the luck line and buy tags. This ultimately hurts resident hunters the most. I support that the idea that if you get a land owner tag it has to be unit wide.

You arent skipping a line, there is no line in NM. Give me more options to do anything in life, not less. EPLUS does that

 

[WildWill]

None of that money goes to managing or benefiting the herd.



David
NM

Not disingenuous. If a landowner gets $5K for a tag, what of that money goes to support the herd? Somewhere between zero and something, but definitely below $5K.

Don't for a minute think that $5K is a high price, they can go for much more. Again, NMDGF sees none of that, just the license and tag fees collected on top of that.

Hank is an exceptional landowner. Not many do the work he does for habitat, and to do so he should be reimbursed in some fashion - in this system today, it is tags. The system today, however, ends up being severely skewed to benefit the high-dollar-capable nonresident, rather than the residents the herd is supposedly held in trust for.

Curiously, the only folks I have noticed here defending the NM system are NM nonresidents.

David
NM

I was referring to the above sentence as disingenuous. "Somewhere between zero and something" isn't nothing. Unfortunately the real number is incalculable with the current system. Personally I don't have a dog in the fight and can see both sides. I can understand the frustration of a resident having problems drawing tags meanwhile watching wealthy NR hunt every year. Just like I can understand a landowner who provides excellent wildlife habitat and spends money on habitat improvement deserving some landowner tags. Perhaps the Eplus system needs more oversight as I've said I'm not a expert on NM landowner tags by any means. The system @bulldawg87 described sounds pretty good with a decent amount of oversight.


The outfitter pool is true outfitter welfare with little to no merit taking 10% of tags from the public draw. Bigger issue IMO then EPlus.

 

[wyflyguy]

The outfitter pool is true outfitter welfare with little to no merit taking 10% of tags from the public draw. Bigger issue IMO then EPlus.

YES!!! This is just insanity to me.