New Mexico Privatization. Nuthin like it

[Treeshark]

Since landowners have received landowner permits at a rate that makes NM the cartel (in old OPEC style market control fashion) of private transferable elk permits in the U.S. for over a generation

I think you and @Khunter are right about this- it’s a fairly simple math problem though. Increasing transferable permits in other states would fix this.

There is way too much focus on reducing the numerator of this equation, as I think most of us agree that the NM system works great from a financial and biological perspective.

The solution is finding ways to expand this type of system to other states- growing the denominator is the obvious solution to a lot of these complaints (at least if the complaint is the proportion of NM transferable tags vs national).

 

[TheTone]

I think you and @Khunter are right about this- it’s a fairly simple math problem though. Increasing transferable permits in other states would fix this.

There is way too much focus on reducing the numerator of this equation, as I think most of us agree that the NM system works great from a financial and biological perspective.

The solution is finding ways to expand this type of system to other states- growing the denominator is the obvious solution to a lot of these complaints (at least if the complaint is the proportion of NM transferable tags vs national).

I’m glad you think the privatization of wildlife is so great. I hope you’re never in some position to make it a reality. Plenty of other countries and high fence places think like you

 

[Treeshark]

I’m glad you think the privatization of wildlife is so great.

You see it as privatization, I see it as democratization. Just a different perspective.

 

[noharleyyet]

Privatization of private property?

 

[Nm252525]

Why not fight so passionately about moving these tags since apparently all EPLUS vouchers go to NR and outfitters anyways? I see almost zero benefit to the NM state as a whole for those 1600 tags.

View attachment 327013

Completely different topic but you are right those need to go as well. Might even be more corrupt than eplus. Know multiple people who sign 5$ 2-day contracts with friends who are outfitters to put in with that pool.

 

[seeth07]

Completely different topic but you are right those need to go as well. Might even be more corrupt than eplus. Know multiple people who sign 5$ 2-day contracts with friends who are outfitters to put in with that pool.

That was my point. The outfitter draw seems extremely corrupt. When I was in NM deer hunting, I was talking with an outfitter while we were there and asked us if we wanted to have better odds when are applying the next year by using him as the outfitter. He said he would just charge $200 bucks for a guide contract to get us into that draw. Seemed beyond sketchy to me!

 

[abqbw]

The king’s elk is what you want, apparently. Whatever.





That is some magically thinking there, @hank4elk
And contradictory. If the total number of elk tags is determined annually by G&F based on the herd population as you say, which it is, then by definition any of the total tags carved away from the public draw process is taken from what would otherwise be the public draw? Here it is, in black and white but directly from NMGFD website.

“Within Primary Management Zones, the department actively monitors herd productivity and recommends license adjustments to manage elk herds within a range of sustainable population metrics and harvest strategies. The total number of elk licenses issued in each Game Management Unit (GMU) are divided between the public draw and the EPLUS system based on the percent of public vs private land in the Primary Management Zone of each GMU.”

If you cannot derive from the above, that the EPlus tags are taken right off the top and taken away from the otherwise public draw of all tags, then I do not know what to offer. The math and process to take tags out of the public draw to create a private/transferable tag process is clearly and simply described by NMGFD. Alternatively, kindly cite factual information on how NMGFD determines number of tags and then, within it’s management model, tosses in an EXTRA 13,000 tags for EPlus on top of what they determined was the proper number of tags to mange the herd.

If EPLUS went away, what do you say would happen to the 13,000 tags carved out for EPLUS given ? Are you saying they would just go “POOF!!” no longer exist and NMGFD would just sell 13000 fewer tags. If your answer is yes, great, explain how that could be. If the answer is no and public draw tags would increase by the same/similar amount, then tell me again how those tags were not taken from public draw in the first place and how the magical 13,000 EPLUS elk tags came to be without reducing public draw tags.

Right. The norm in the west is that tag numbers are calculated based on the population in an entire GMU. The tags are issued by public process. Hunters that are awarded the tags and landowners work out access. And since the tags are public instead of private like in NM the price for access is such that the states can afford to buy private land access through open gate programs. No privatization in AZ and MT vs wholesale privatization in NM is the direct cause for AZ and MT to have 4 million and 6 million acres of open gate while NM has only 35,500 acres.

NM also has 500,000 acres of unit wide EPLUS private land open to public tag holders. One would think, hey this is great. EPLUS opens private land. But the opposite is actually true. EPLUS unit wide is a negative access program for the public. For two reasons. First, to be unit wide or ranch only is a voluntary selection by the EPLUS landowner. This greatly skews the unit wide selectees to be properties with low value elk hunting. Only landowners that will realize enormous private gain by making their private tags valid in the entire GMU compared to the public benefit provided by public access to their land will pick unit wide. The value transfer, like all of EPLUS, is from the public to the private. Second. Unit wide only is an option in the primary managemt zone. In the zone there are 9.9 million acres of public land. 3.3 million acres of private land. 500,000 of which is in unit wide. So through unit wide, about 3,000 private tag holders gain access to 9.9 million acres of public land plus the 500,000 acres of unit wide enrolled private land. So 10.4 million acres of access. In return about 24,000 public tag holders gain access to 500,000 acres of private land. Let me say it again. 3,000 rich private tag hunters gain access to 10.4 million acres of mostly public land through EPLUS unit wide. 24,000 public tag hunters gain access to 500,000 acres of private land through EPLUS unit wide. It is such a typical New Mexico EPLUS hose job for the public.

 

[abqbw]

I think you and @Khunter are right about this- it’s a fairly simple math problem though. Increasing transferable permits in other states would fix this.

There is way too much focus on reducing the numerator of this equation, as I think most of us agree that the NM system works great from a financial and biological perspective.

The solution is finding ways to expand this type of system to other states- growing the denominator is the obvious solution to a lot of these complaints (at least if the complaint is the proportion of NM transferable tags vs national).

By your same logic states should give all their buildings and facilities to private real estate firms, free of charge, and collect and pocket the rent money. Think of all the money that would be made. Hell, all governments should give all their assets to private interests. There would be so much private money made. Trillions. Think what someone could make leasing the White House. New Mexico should definitely give the Round House (our capital building) to private landowners. I mean they damn near already own the place and what goes on in it.

 

[Treeshark]

None of those things put more elk on the mountain. That is what this program is really all about.

 

[brocksw]

By your same logic states should give all their buildings and facilities to private real estate firms, free of charge, and collect and pocket the rent money. Think of all the money that would be made. Hell, all governments should give all their assets to private interests. There would be so much private money made. Trillions. Think what someone could make leasing the White House. New Mexico should definitely give the Round House (our capital building) to private landowners. I mean they damn near already own the place and what goes on in it.

None of those things allow landowners to profit off the publicly owned elk. That is what this program is really all about.

But on that note, let’s privatize some other public resources, like water and air. If they don’t currently serve private interests, then what good are they?

 

[MTGomer]

On page 9, we went from eplus is good for the trustees because of the revenue from tags, to its good for the trustees because of the 4.6% tax off the sale of tags.

Show me a trust that accepts 95.4% of its value being diverted away from the beneficiaries.

 

[D_Walt]

So if I have this right, NM incentivizes landowners to improve habitat and in turn grow the herd and everyone gets to eat from the bigger pie. No government program is perfect and all are open to abuse, but Significant amounts of private are opened to access and landowner tolerance of increased herd population is strengthened….and Hunters bitch about it.

Conversely, Montana landowners want fewer elk, have minimal incentive to tolerate large herds so shoulder seasons get put in place, herd numbers drop…and hunters bitch about it.

Death or Bunga-Bunga…

 

[MTGomer]

So if I have this right, NM incentivizes landowners to improve habitat and in turn grow the herd and everyone gets to eat from the bigger pie. No government program is perfect and all are open to abuse, but Significant amounts of private are opened to access and landowner tolerance of increased herd population is strengthened….and Hunters bitch about it.

Conversely, Montana landowners want fewer elk, have minimal incentive to tolerate large herds so shoulder seasons get put in place, herd numbers drop…and hunters bitch about it.

Death or Bunga-Bunga…

Somewhere in the middle there’s probably an answer.

NM gives unit wide transferable elk tags to people with very small parcels

I own enough land in Montana, that if it were set up like NM I could probably get one. I spray the weeds and provide winter range on my 20 acres. To think I could get a tag to sell to someone so they could go hunt the forest 20 miles away is mind boggling.

But on the other hand, the condition of the elk herd after the last decade of shoulder season BS is almost as mind boggling.

 

[brocksw]

So if I have this right, NM incentivizes landowners to improve habitat and in turn grow the herd and everyone gets to eat from the bigger pie. No government program is perfect and all are open to abuse, but Significant amounts of private are opened to access and landowner tolerance of increased herd population is strengthened….and Hunters bitch about it.

Conversely, Montana landowners want fewer elk, have minimal incentive to tolerate large herds so shoulder seasons get put in place, herd numbers drop…and hunters bitch about it.

Death or Bunga-Bunga…

The most recent data I can find is 2021, where there were 8,967 tags issued in the E-plus sytem.

a grand total of 408 or 4.5% of them were issued for habitat incentives. Scroll to bottom to see the explicitly defined habitat incentive tags.

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/backcountryhunters/pages/11295/attachments/original/1648069046/EPLUS-Landowner-List-PMZ.pdf?1648069046

 

[brocksw]

Interesting factoid, someone please correct me if my numbers are wrong.

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/backcountryhunters/pages/11295/attachments/original/1648069046/EPLUS-Landowner-List-PMZ.pdf?1648069046

All the parcels My. Stanley owns have the red markers. They should total around 15,000 acres.


I can't find the number of tags available in 2021, but I would assume they're fairly close to 23/24 numbers.

https://www.wildlife.state.nm.us/download/publications/rib/2023/hunting_sections/19-Elk-Encouragement-Hunts.pdf

So, if these numbers are correct. The public gets 463 elk tags in this unit. And ONE landowner, in the area of the unit with the majority of the public land in the entire unit, gets 246. Which, he sells for a pretty penny.

Better hurry, looks like he's almost sold out!

Rates & Packages - Wheaton Creek Ranch

www.wheatoncreekranch.com

 

[mtmuley]

Wonder how many Vermejo Park gets? mtmuley

 

[brocksw]

Wonder how many Vermejo Park gets? mtmuley

I've heard rumors that between the 3 ted turner ranches, they represent about 250 tags. But the ranch names and contacts are not listed as Vermejo, Ladder, or Armendaris in that document. Someone more familiar with who's running those operations would have to parse that out.

But let me assure you, of all the money the Turner ranches are making off of the public's elk, a HUGE portion of it is going straight back to red blooded, every day New Mexicans! It's too bad too, Mr. Turner is barely getting by...he needs those dollars as reimbursement for the huge monetary drain the elk are to him and his property.

 

[brocksw]

And I know this is going to come as quite a shock. But Mr. Stanley, the civic minded landowner who's only selling your elk(~250 of em a year) to put food on his table, isn't just claiming those elk as his to sell. It appears he's also been working overtime to take public land access away from the public too. But I'm sure he's barely scraping by because those vermin elk are eating him out of house and home, so we should be okay with more privatization of public resources. Right guys?

New Mexico court upholds access to public crossings on private lands

Sep. 2—The New Mexico Court of Appeals has ruled against a landowner who sought to remove access to public roads crossing his properties in Colfax and Mora counties in a long-running dispute. The judges rejected all of David Stanley's arguments to reverse the state District Court's ruling: That...

www.yahoo.com

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/nm-court-of-appeals/115014498.html

NM Attorney General Seeks $230,000 From Landowner In White Peak Road Case - New Mexico Wildlife Federation - New Mexico Wildlife Federation

By BEN NEARY NMWF Conservation Director The New Mexico Attorney General’s Office is seeking $230,000 from a private landowner to recover the state’s costs of pressing a lawsuit to open roads leading to popular hunting areas near White Peak. Judge Sarah C. Backus in January granted a request from...

nmwildlife.org

 

[sjl2012]

I've heard rumors that between the 3 ted turner ranches, they represent about 250 tags. But the ranch names and contacts are not listed as Vermejo, Ladder, or Armendaris in that document. Someone more familiar with who's running those operations would have to parse that out.

But let me assure you, of all the money the Turner ranches are making off of the public's elk, a HUGE portion of it is going straight back to red blooded, every day New Mexicans! It's too bad too, Mr. Turner is barely getting by...he needs those dollars as reimbursement for the huge monetary drain the elk are to him and his property.

Vermejo is listed as Vermejo, you're looking at the wrong list. They're in the SMZ. And like the David Stanley ranch listed above they don't use all of their tags. Not even close, there are a lot of unconverted tags each year, especially in units where it's mostly private land. Also, all of the private ranches in the secondary zone are OTC now and not listed on EPLUS.

 

[brocksw]

Vermejo is listed as Vermejo, you're looking at the wrong list. They're in the SMZ.

I still can't find Vermejo in any of the documents. Which list? Link?

And like the David Stanley ranch listed above they don't use all of their tags. Not even close, there are a lot of unconverted tags each year, especially in units where it's mostly private land

Do those tags get converted back to the public draw for residents? My understanding is that they do not. David Stanley's own website says they're almost sold out. So, however many codes he converts to paid hunts (aka the number of the public's elk he converts to $$ in his bank account), business is good. It would be interesting to see the exact conversion of codes to tags that he gets, by weapon and sex.

Also, all of the private ranches in the secondary zone are OTC now and not listed on EPLUS.

But functionally they work the same as the Eplus, correct? Still managed under the EPLUS rules, they are just "OTC" or "unlimited", meaning the landowner can "sell" as many as he wants. But you still pay the landowner. From the link below, it looks like Mr. Turner says payment in the form of a $20,000 guided hunt will work.

You said the Vermejo is in the Secondary Management Zone. But it's still a pretty penny to hunt elk on the Vermejo ranch.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ce553f6fbcbe2000111ad35/t/642499f136f9a3456a7c9ad8/1680120305968/VR+2023+Hunt+Rates+%26+Dates+.pdf