100% agree. This calculus has shifted for a huge number of NR’s in the past few years.
New Mexico Privatization. Nuthin like it
- Thread starter abqbw
- Start date
100% agree. This calculus has shifted for a huge number of NR’s in the past few years.
seeth07
Well-known member
Did you not pay attention to the stats I presented? More tags are going to the public/pool draw due to the program...
The first option helps the resource as well as a great deal of non-hunter trustees far more than the second.
I realize things are more nuanced than that- but from a pure beneficiary/mathematic standpoint, the answer is obviously yes.
Khunter
Well-known member
Complete unadulterated horsepuckey. But at least you are being consistent so there is that.
it's not obviously yes. refer back to your "vague generalities." you can't just say something is better and have it be so.
in any event, trustees manage the trust.
depriving beneficiaries of opportunity by pricing them out, is not good or "beneficial" and would be mismanagement of the trust IMO.
you can benefit the resource many ways. it's just money, mix and match. put all the transferable tags back in a public pool and up the NR quota to 10% and sell those suckers for 1.2k in the draw with a 30 dollar app fee to NRs and i bet you generate more money.
use that money to compensate landowners and award them for maintaining quality habitat, provide access programs, etc.
Nope. While perhaps “depriving” some, your scenario would actually be better economically and a clear net benefit for the vast majority of the state (non-hunters must be considered).
Once again- being a Public Trust Doctrine strict constructionist is great right up until it isn’t.
seeth07
Well-known member
Since I think we all pretty much can agree on the fact that E Plus isn't going away and the fact that it can be at least improved upon, there is likely way more value in discussing what language and specific parts of the application process/tag issuance that could be tweaked. Coming up with specific ideas would allow people to read them and then take action by reaching out to those that can do something about this. I'll put my effort into that possibly this week and end my effort in the current bicker fest.
Is there a specific part you disagree with, or is that just emotions getting the best of you?
Perhaps time to back away from this discussion for a bit (for me anyway), it’s just becoming a pissing match. Reason, and unfortunately honesty seem to elude this topic.
I don't understand how the state comes out ahead here- they give the tag for a public resource to an individual, who then sells it and makes the money on it. At least when a public tag is sold (or applied for) in every other state, the state, and hence the residents of that state, benefit financially, not one individual land owner. I think you're missing that aspect of the "non hunters" benefiting.
I think I'll keep it the same. Over the counter Elk, Deer, Bear, Bighorn Sheep... We may complain about the state of our Mule Deer population, but you won't catch us moving to New MexicoYou should change your profile… it still says Montana, that could be confusing for some people.
no simply highlighted in some detail what i disagree with, and that you can likely achieve the same end via different means that leaves more tags in a public draw, and your response was "nope"
so, if that's the kind of discourse you provide i'll just return it in kind. i don't even know what to disagree with, you just say "nope, it's actually better to do it this way" - refer back to your vague generalities that you do, in fact, so often employ.
Could you please be more specific?
Have fun, I expect you guys will have this figured out soon enough.
seeth07
Well-known member
Well the state still gets money this way I believe because when you sell the voucher, you need to report that income on your taxes. I'm not sure about numbers/comparison.
seeth07
Well-known member
Ok, here is the legwork/math I was able to work up since you seem to think it amounts to nothing.
I'm assuming that the landowner is filling for individual income taxes and is over the 12k/24k/16k threshold which puts them at 4.7%. If it is a corporate ranch filing taxes, the amount paid in taxes would likely be higher.
The single voucher they have sells for 6k. NM tax = $282. This I would assume goes into the general state funds and allocations for all NM citizens alike. The resident applying in the draw for an elk license pays $126 (90+7+15+10+4) to the NMF&G of which I'm not sure how the money is allocated but I'm guessing a good portion if not all of it states within that department and therefore not necessarily benefiting all citizens of NM.
WildWill
Well-known member
I find this whole conversation fascinating. I don't believe Eplus is all good or all bad. IME it's a system set towards working with those stakeholders who can have the most impact on expanding the resource. Can it be considered a direct threat to NAMC sure I can see that. But I'm not so concerned with the democratic distribution of a public resource that I'm willing to pick a worse system just because it's "fair". Perspective is always key for many of us Midwest or southern whitetail guys it's been pay to play for decades so no big deal to us. For our western brothers with a strong sense of the NAMC I can understand there resistance and more power to them. But remember DIY resident hunters are not the only stakeholders at the table of course here at hunttalk it's the main party we hear from. Landowners and non hunting NM residents are stakeholders as well as diy hunter's.
i should clarify.
i'm not so much arguing the merits of eplus. i'm speaking in generalities.
i sense a belief in this thread that things like eplus are "the answer", "the future", "the way hunting should operate"; that transferable tags should be the norm.
maybe that's not a belief in this thread and i'm projecting. but if so, in short, it's bullshit - nothing will lead to the demise of everyday man western public hunting faster than a push for such systems to become the norm.
targeted, limited in scope, and controlled, there is merit and benefit. but i will resist every effort for more transferable tags, because they largely don't go back in the bag and their benefit is shakey from the start and diminishes fast. once the private party profit train starts winning, it's snowballs.
why has western hunting become so gawddamn popular with easterner and midwesterners?
is it because you've continually found yourselves locked out of places to hunt? landowners controlling the rules of game you want to play? overrun small parcels of public with scarce game?
so you look west and see that you can just draw a tag for a few hundred dollars and hunt game rich public land without having to pay people to access the animals?
and now y'all want the west to start mirroring what has caused so many hunters to quit or look west? FFS
is it because you've continually found yourselves locked out of places to hunt? landowners controlling the rules of game you want to play? overrun small parcels of public with scarce game?
so you look west and see that you can just draw a tag for a few hundred dollars and hunt game rich public land without having to pay people to access the animals?
and now y'all want the west to start mirroring what has caused so many hunters to quit or look west? FFS
seeth07
Well-known member
I don't think that is the reason for most. It certainly isn't about the money because staying at home and hunting - even if having to pay for private access - is significantly cheaper than a bulk of western hunting trips.
I would think that a bulk of the addiction is similar to my motives. Its the beauty of the landscapes, the different wildlife and the freedom to explore on public lands.
You are really looking at this from such an extreme point of view. Let me ask you this - did you not enjoy your trip to WI? I thought you were ready to head back and do it again. Why did you do it? Why do you want to go back? How you respond is the exact same reason why I want to head to CO on an elk hunt out your back door.
will this be the 4th time we've gone over this?
i believe that hunting purely for the sake of hunting, or adventure in other words, is a worthwhile use of time, not dependent on bringing home meat. i just differ from some that if there was no prospect of bringing meat home i wouldn't be heading out the door with my rifle to begin with; i simply can't imagine the point.
but the point and fact remains the that east is in a state of dropping hunter numbers with the number one reason being cited is a lack of places to hunt, is that not true?
transferable landowner tags, the profit machine, outfitting, leasing, all these things have a tendency to result in a net loss of access (and tags) to public diy hunters. and i believe it's a farce to say such things are the only way to "greatly benefit the resource" and the other stakeholder/beneficiaries. i'll always be against it.
