New Mexico Privatization. Nuthin like it

[Khunter]

And 75% of all privately sold elk authorizations end up sold to nonresidents. So those stating NM residents have equal opportunity to buy Eplus licenses are full of beans.

No other western state sticks it to their residents like NM does.

 

[Treeshark]

And 75% of all privately sold elk authorizations end up sold to nonresidents. So those stating NM residents have equal opportunity to buy Eplus licenses are full of beans.

Is there a new law that I am not aware of that excludes residents from purchasing these? I do not believe your post is accurate/truthful.

 

[David58]

Is there a new law that I am not aware of that excludes residents from purchasing these? I do not believe your post is accurate/truthful.

Understand that many if not most of those tags are committed to outfitters via agreements between the landowner and the outfitter. Only a fraction of those are available on "the market."

Believe what you want. You consistently accuse those trying to explain the circumstances here as being untruthful, when it appears you either simply don't want to listen or are trolling. And there isn't a "marketplace" where you can go hunt up tags for sale, other than maybe Craigslist, so access is for the most part limited to what you can scare up through your network. If you don't have connections to landowners, no network, you are pretty much SOL.

If you want, you can come up with the same numbers yourself. But you might not believe them or might not consider them truthful, so why bother.

It has been interesting on all of these threads that one of the themes is nonresidents telling NM residents that the system works really well.

I will be a NR before too long. Don't expect me to be singing about how wonderful the NM system is from afar. Here on the ground, it is broken. Few put the work in that Hank does, many make more on their tags than working the ground could ever produce for them.

David
NM

 

[Treeshark]

And there isn't a "marketplace" where you can go hunt up tags for sale

Yes there is- several in fact. Less than 10 seconds on Google and you’re there.

The amount of incorrect information on this thread is crazy. I’m finding it hard to believe some of it isn’t intentional to mislead.

 

[seeth07]

One this fantasy football has taught me, more specially the great Matthew Berry, is that it isn't hard to use statistics to hype up your viewpoint of something good. Looks like take back your elk does a good job of that.

Here is the other side:

Only about 20% of all E Plus licenses are unit wide.

Total elk licenses in New Mexico:
2022: 36,008 total with 13,639 to E Plus
2021: 36,162 total with 13,803 to E Plus
2020: 23,180 total with 14,616 to E Plus
2019: 22,000 total with ??? to E Plus
2018: E Plus rule change
2016: 21,000 total
*years only missing because I couldn't find the number officially listed on archived NMF&G websites

Elk population estimates:
2023: 104,000
2022: 102,000
2019: 80,000
2017: 70,000
*years only missing because I couldn't find the number officially listed on archived NMF&G websites

Elk population is rising. Number of tags available in the public draw is rising. E Plus tags remaining about the same or possibly even decresing?

 

[TOGIE]

Yes there is- several in fact. Less than 10 seconds on Google and you’re there.

The amount of incorrect information on this thread is crazy. I’m finding it hard to believe some of it isn’t intentional to mislead.

One this fantasy football has taught me, more specially the great Matthew Berry, is that it isn't hard to use statistics to hype up your viewpoint of something good. Looks like take back your elk does a good job of that.

Here is the other side:

Only about 20% of all E Plus licenses are unit wide.

Total elk licenses in New Mexico:
2022: 36,008 total with 13,639 to E Plus
2021: 36,162 total with 13,803 to E Plus
2020: 23,180 total with 14,616 to E Plus
2019: 22,000 total with ??? to E Plus
2018: E Plus rule change
2016: 21,000 total
*years only missing because I couldn't find the number officially listed on archived NMF&G websites

Elk population estimates:
2023: 104,000
2022: 102,000
2019: 80,000
2017: 70,000
*years only missing because I couldn't find the number officially listed on archived NMF&G websites

Elk population is rising. Number of tags available in the public draw is rising. E Plus tags remaining about the same or possibly even decresing?

part of the problem here is for many of us, none of that matters, at all.

whatever truths or mistruths get thrown around are irrelevant because one thing is true: these are privatized, transferable tags generally going to folks with (a lot) more money than the average new mexican or even american for private party profit.

you can say it's great for the resource, or it's better than some other system, but i don't care, i'm against it on principle and most of us are. it's undemocratic and unbecoming of the values of wildlife management that have guided this country for so long.

 

[Dave N]

Point of order! Just because a tag is being sold does NOT mean it is unavailable for a resident. The ability to pay for it or not is the same for all parties regardless of where they live.

 

[Treeshark]

One thing I have found, as I get older- if I have to twist the truth to justify my position, perhaps that is a sign that I should reconsider my viewpoint.

Here is the reality on this topic, with very few exceptions:

-Those who support the system generally stand to benefit from it.

-Those against it likely view it as a threat to their own opportunity (either in their current state or through fear of them coming to their state).

Both of those viewpoints are completely understandable. But the outright dishonesty is a really bad look.

The question is: what is better for the trustees of the state (including non-hunters) and the resource?

 

[Bonasababy]

It does seem a bit like a broken record, how many different threads have you started on pretty much the exact same topic?

The solution is not near as simple as you make it sound. Look at CO, MT and WY. These are the states with by far the most elk. All 3 have robust over the counter elk tags for residents. All 3 have residents complaining about all the elk going to inaccessible private land once the shooting starts. Those private landowners then turn around and charge high trespass fees or just go straight to leasing their land out to outfitters.

So if you take those tags away from the landowners and give them to the public hunters in Mew Mexico what do you think is going to happen? The elk will learn to move to private land when the shooting starts and then the landowners will charge a trespass fee or lease their land out to outfitters.

I don’t have the numbers in front of me but it seems like there is a lot more private land in most of the elk core range in New Mexico than some of the other states as well so this would make the situation worse.

You would just be trading expensive transferable tags for expensive access to private land where the elk would quickly move to.

Next you will be back to complaining that it is the terrible nonresidents buying those transferable tags and the poor residents wouldn’t pay for access. That seems like it is your true agenda all along.

Maybe you can figure out how to take another chunk of tags away from the DIY nonresidents by jacking with the rounding rules so there essentially aren’t any youth tags available to nonresident youth anymore.

 

[Bonasababy]

Lots of questions from an easterner...

Are elk moving to private land due to hunting pressure or in response to increased motor vehicle use during the season (yes I know it can be one and the same but doesn't have to be) and how does that differ on public lands with controlled permits and motor vehicle bans?

Is there any evidence that private landowners limit the numbers of hunters at any one time and limit motor vehicle disturbance? If so --and public lands don't do the same thing--is the goal of helping keep more elk on public lands achievable?

 

[Pucky Freak]

clean air, clean water, clean soil, reclamation, fishing, thriving ecosystems, parks, trails, problem animal removal/relocation, roadkill cleanup, salvage tags, nature programs, boat launches, wildlife viewing, erosion control, invasive species management, operational costs, communication, signage, web-hosting.

I agree with all of that, but doesn’t it still occurs within E-Plus?

Yes, E-Plus benefits the non-hunting public, and the benefit is concentrated in certain applications (see above), as well as concentrated in regions of the state where elk live.

That being said, I’d argue that the entities that benefit the most are wealthy non-resident hunters, outfitters, and E-Plus enrollees.

Rather than let the market dictate the value of E-Plus tags granted by NM to private citizens, why not calculate the value of the landowner habitat improvements has to the public, and then pay the LO that amount?

An arbitrary current example: LO provides annual calculated public benefit of $5000. LO given $30,000 worth of elk tags, and hunting opportunity is removed from a resident hunter, reducing public benefit by $500. So an extra $25,500 public trust resource is granted to a private citizen, with NO public benefit.

 

[Treeshark]

part of the problem here is for many of us, none of that matters, at all.

whatever truths or mistruths get thrown around are irrelevant

Although I don’t know you personally @TOGIE, I am a bit surprised by this comment- especially from you.

Telling the truth always matters, even when it becomes inconvenient.

 

[seeth07]

Yes, E-Plus benefits the non-hunting public, and the benefit is concentrated in certain applications (see above), as well as concentrated in regions of the state where elk live.

That being said, I’d argue that the entities that benefit the most are wealthy non-resident hunters, outfitters, and E-Plus enrollees.

Rather than let the market dictate the value of E-Plus tags granted by NM to private citizens, why not calculate the value of the landowner habitat improvements has to the public, and then pay the LO that amount?

An arbitrary current example: LO provides annual calculated public benefit of $5000. LO given $30,000 worth of elk tags, and hunting opportunity is removed from a resident hunter, reducing public benefit by $500. So an extra $25,500 public trust resource is granted to a private citizen, with NO public benefit.

I believe that is actually the goal of the program and how it was "sold" and is "marketed". There is no doubt that it isn't being fairly done.

The NM elk population is likely set to double by the time the 2018 program change reaches a decade in. That is worth a substantial amount to the state of NM for literally just about all stakeholders in the state except ranchers due to increased competition on the landscape. Thus the idea of the program - a way to make it a win for everyone.

There were good intentions with the program (likely driven by greedy politicians/landowners) and it just hasn't been executed well probably due to the real motives of those politicians/landowners.

 

[Treeshark]

Rather than let the market dictate the value of E-Plus tags granted by NM to private citizens, why not calculate the value of the landowner habitat improvements has to the public, and then pay the LO that amount?

Who is going to pay that bill?

 

[Treeshark]

The NM elk population is likely set to double by the time the 2018 program change reaches a decade in. That is worth a substantial amount to the state of NM

There were good intentions with the program (likely driven by greedy politicians/landowners) and it just hasn't been executed well

@seeth07, I am having trouble reconciling these two viewpoints. It seems that it worked great if elk populations almost doubled, as that is one of the goals.

What part of it do you feel isn’t executed well?

 

[TOGIE]

part of the problem here is for many of us, none of that matters, at all.

whatever truths or mistruths get thrown around are irrelevant because one thing is true: these are privatized, transferable tags generally going to folks with (a lot) more money than the average new mexican or even american for private party profit.

you can say it's great for the resource, or it's better than some other system, but i don't care, i'm against it on principle and most of us are. it's undemocratic and unbecoming of the values of wildlife management that have guided this country for so long.

Although I don’t know you personally @TOGIE, I am a bit surprised by this comment- especially from you.

Telling the truth always matters, even when it becomes inconvenient.

you missed my point then if you're surprised.

twisting the statistics any which way is irrelevant to most of us. khunter's statistics versus seeths - irrelevant to me, couldn't care less if you will. because one truth matters: these are privatized tags that generally go to the highest (richest) bidder for profit.

you can create any argument you want, twist any statistics any which way, doesn't matter to me, because i'm against that concept from it's core. i think it's dangerous and is/will be a net negative in the long run for the beneficiaries of the resource, for the hunter and non hunter a like, if as a society choose to support and proliferate such systems. money and private property are the ultimate excluders in this context, and i can't see how we would want to feed that dragon. my support for private tags stops at transferable.

like i said, it's undemocratic and unbecoming of the values of wildlife management that have guided this country for so long.

 

[Treeshark]

it's undemocratic and unbecoming of the values of wildlife management that have guided this country for so long.

I have found that people tend to choose to draw that line of principle just short of the point where things negatively impacts them.

Don’t think I missed anything- I was surprised that you’d be fine with outright dishonesty in lieu of a cogent argument. That seems out of character.

 

[TOGIE]

I have found that people tend to choose to draw that line of principle just short of the point where things negatively impacts them.

sure, everyone is looking out for themselves.

as you and seeth are. you see personal benefit to these systems in obtaining tags.

my wife and i make pretty stellar money combined, i could obtain more of these tags than i'd like to admit if i switched things around in the budget.

but where's the fun in that? filling the freezer for 15,000-20,000 dollars a year? in tags alone?

if that's what hunting becomes i'm out. the majority of folks would have no choice but to quit.

 

[seeth07]

@seeth07, I am having trouble reconciling these two viewpoints. It seems that it worked great if elk populations almost doubled, as that is one of the goals.

What part of it do you feel isn’t executed well?

The ratio of 35-40% of the total elk tags going to landowner vouchers to sell when a good portion of these landowner vouchers are going to participants in the program that are providing little to no value to the overall plan. Their 20-100 acre parcels are indeed being preserved for wildlife which is great but is worth the 7k average annual subsidy they are receiving? We don't actually know the "draw rate" of those small parcels in the program but I was indeed blown away at the amount of parcels receiving a tag with less than 100 acres.

 

[seeth07]

sure, everyone is looking out for themselves.

as you and seeth are. you see personal benefit to these systems in obtaining tags.

my wife and i make pretty stellar money combined, i could obtain more of these tags than i'd like to admit if i switched things around in the budget.

but where's the fun in that? filling the freezer for 15,000-20,000 dollars a year? in tags alone?

if that's what hunting becomes i'm out. the majority of folks would have no choice but to quit.

I didn't even spend 15k - for two of us - to go to Argentina - to shoot ducks for 3 days, an axis deer and a blackbuck. Where in the heck does 15-20k come from? More like 5-8k to shoot an elk in NM.