Thank you, I appreciate that.
I do have to honestly say, the vocal support for things that reduce NR opportunity by many HT members (among others) have helped clarify the landscape for a lot of NRs.
New Mexico Privatization. Nuthin like it
- Thread starter abqbw
- Start date
Thank you, I appreciate that.
I do have to honestly say, the vocal support for things that reduce NR opportunity by many HT members (among others) have helped clarify the landscape for a lot of NRs.
I can’t say I want NR opportunity reduced I’d just like to see it be more equitable and spread around regardless of economic class. I’d also rather see a state wildlife agency benefit from the tags more than private landowners and outfitters
Archer86
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2022
- Messages
- 305
It goes both ways I would say. But as a nr in new mexico I would support making the state stick to there state allocated tag split regardless if it cut nr tags would it be good for me no but it's good for the residents that live in that state.
You choose where you live if you made a poor choice where to live based on hobbies you enjoy that's no one's fault but your own
I've been chuckling at the thread because of this.
NM poverty rate is one of the highest in the nation. A bunch of guys who hunt in multiple states for recreation complaining that their 3rd or 4th elk might not be available is not what I'd lead with in a campaign to keep the current system.
Benfromalbuquerque
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2020
- Messages
- 1,650
We're all Non-residents in 49 states. Advocating for the future generations' opportunity to experience at least a portion of we all have without having to be the highest bidder should be an issue every hunter can get behind, no different than preserving the public lands we all enjoy.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
As they say on the MT thread, "you want it, move to Montana."
New Mexico
Rs complain about the tag allocation to NR vermin, outfitters, landowners, and not enough opportunity for themselves.
Montana
Rs complain about too many NR vermin and outfitters.
And that wealthy landowners won't let them shoot the elk that are legally theirs as beneficiaries of the trust (or something)
And wealthy landowners complain about the neighbors and the neighbors elk.
And complain about the inability to get tags or transferable tags as "compensation".
And outfitters complain that their clients are treated like vermin by the rest of the Rs and drawing a permit is hard.
I'm sure I missed some things and every state has a similar list.
See the theme? Everyone is a victim. It's America, so the more money you have, the more likely people will agree you are a victim and change things for you. But regardless of the changes, someone will still claim to be a victim.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
There are no emojis available to express how much I like this mic dropper.
I wonder how much of this comes down to the primal need to "choose sides" in a discussion or conflict, or how much comes down to brains being wired to love conflict, accelerated by digital influences. The notion of weaponizing victimhood has really taken off over the last 20-30 years. It seems to infiltrate everything we do anymore, and we're constantly being told we have to choose a side over some trivial issue or be branded as an outsider and unworthy of acceptance into a peer group we identify with. We jockey for position using rhetoric with no nuance or ability to show subtly as we think our words matter more than our ears. We tend to eschew compromise for battle, and there's a real danger here of losing any kind of connection between stakeholders that deserve respect, patience and understanding.
I've been chuckling at the thread because of this.
NM poverty rate is one of the highest in the nation. A bunch of guys who hunt in multiple states for recreation complaining that their 3rd or 4th elk might not be available is not what I'd lead with in a campaign to keep the current system.
Good reminder of the humanity issues that plague a state with a huge budget surplus. With that high poverty rate comes the highest substance abuse rate, an alcohol-related death rate that's more than twice the national rate, some of the highest suicide and overdose death rates in the country, and the lowest educational system ranking in the country. I doubt changing an EPLUS system so a handful of people can get a Gila tag instead of unit 9 tag or access to private property is a top priority to most New Mexicans either.
I think that cuts both ways, personally.
Reminds me of someone who wanted others to eat cake if they didn't have bread.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Yet states without transfer programs have more elk.
seeth07
Well-known member
Per available habitat?
Of course not. Ben’s comment seemed strangely beneath Ben from an intellectual perspective… guessing that was by design.
It’s hard to argue against E-Plus with facts, emotions tend to seep in.
seeth07
Well-known member
Which state has more available suitable elk habitat? MT or NM? Numbers are 104k elk in NM and 143k elk in Montana
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Tribalism is certainly part of it, but that is part of our evolutionary nature. The internet and social media allows us to easily find members of our tribe, and then even create sub-tribes (as I would classify Hunt Talk). the rest of it comes from problems being more complex and our attachment to things that just help "us". No one wants to give up anything. Add in some cognitive dissonance and it put us in a box on various topics. The off-season topics across HT show that. (ie, Everyone thinks social security should be fixed but they don't want to pay more or have benefits cut. Hello brick wall).
Back to topic, I think landowner acceptance is necessary for growing wild herds (and opportunity). NM tries it one way, MT another, and as I pointed out, it seems to really be a different path to the same result. One question I have is has landowner acceptance changed over the decades? IT seems to have declined. You may have a more informed opinion of that in MT. I'm not sure if any decline is just anecdotal (hearing more complains because of internet) or the way various funds are distributed contributes to the situation.
Elk are generalists more-so than specialists. They pioneer and expand populations easily, especially where access to those animals is limited by management decisions on private land. I'm not sure what the historic population of elk were pre-settlement, do you have that number? How does that number fit with the loss of bison on the landscape and use of livestock?
If you want to compare elk populations based on landowner tolerance, I think it's 100% on target to look at states that don't offer that incentive, yet they have higher elk populations. What proponents of the system claim is that elk wouldn't be as fruitful as they are now without this program, yet other states that don't offer that have similar growth rates, or higher.
You can easily argue both sides of E-plus, and per usual, the truth is somewhere in the middle. I think the folks looking for change have a good case to be made from the equitability stand-point, while those ranchers who are using the system as designed are doing great stuff too.
What this argument essentially comes down to is who gets to kill what and where, while also adding in a profit motivator that has been problematic in most states that allow this kind of system. By incentivizing through licenses, you may have some increase in tolerance, but do you have balance, and are you honestly doing what's right for the resource (the resource is more than just "elk on the ground," it's habitat quality, native species conservation, water mgt, etc)? The key to management is having everyone at the table, with an equitable footing. The NM system reduces the value of the resident hunter by placing one interest over the other. I don't claim to know the cultural issues behind this (remembering that NM is a land grant state that maintains some feudal cultural traditions) but I do know that the messaging is on the side of the folks seeking equity.
