New Mexico Privatization. Nuthin like it

[abqbw]

Collectively the 6 intermountain west states of NM, AZ, UT, CO, NV, and MT issue 515.2k total elk licenses.

This includes only 19.2k transferable (sellable) private landowner elk tags.

New Mexico issued 36.6k (7%) of the elk tags but an astounding 13.8k (72%) of the private landowner tags. That is 10x our share of landowner elk permits. It’s almost incomprehensible. Unless you know New Mexico.

Anyone that tries argue that there are features unique to New Mexico that even remotely justify the enormous number and share of private elk tags is talking out of their rear-end. And probably working for a billionaire or centi-millionaire.

 

[Letthemgrow]

Does this bother you?

 

[abqbw]

Does this bother you?

lol. It really pisses me off. Wildlife is uniquely a state natural resource. It’s a helluva a way to allocate the benefits thereof. Anyone that believes in the foundational principles of the nation should be disturbed by this rent-seeking behavior.

 

[Treeshark]

Other western states should be more like New Mexico in this regard, not the other way around.

 

[SAJ-99]

Collectively the 6 intermountain west states of NM, AZ, UT, CO, NV, and MT issue 515.2k total elk licenses.

This includes only 19.2k transferable (sellable) private landowner elk tags.

New Mexico issued 36.6k (7%) of the elk tags but an astounding 13.8k (72%) of the private landowner tags. That is 10x our share of landowner elk permits. It’s almost incomprehensible. Unless you know New Mexico.

Anyone that tries argue that there are features unique to New Mexico that even remotely justify the enormous number and share of private elk tags is talking out of their rear-end. And probably working for a billionaire or centi-millionaire.

Have there been discussion in NM of issuing unlimited elk tags and shooting them like vermin?

 

[Carnage2011]

Here we go again...

 

[mdhunter]

In before the lock!

 

[abqbw]

Other western states should be more like New Mexico in this regard, not the other way around.

I think you got lost on the way to monster mulies or something?

 

[npaden]

Collectively the 6 intermountain west states of NM, AZ, UT, CO, NV, and MT issue 515.2k total elk licenses.

This includes only 19.2k transferable (sellable) private landowner elk tags.

New Mexico issued 36.6k (7%) of the elk tags but an astounding 13.8k (72%) of the private landowner tags. That is 10x our share of landowner elk permits. It’s almost incomprehensible. Unless you know New Mexico.

Anyone that tries argue that there are features unique to New Mexico that even remotely justify the enormous number and share of private elk tags is talking out of their rear-end. And probably working for a billionaire or centi-millionaire.

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.

 

[Treeshark]

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

They always seem to end the same way.

Awesome post.

 

[npaden]

They always end the same way… with people dunking on him like you just did.

Awesome post.

It wasn't my intent. The privatization of wildlife is a concern, I just don't see a good solution. The New Mexico model does encourage habitat improvements and there could be an argument that there are more elk on the landscape as a direct result of those improvements. The CO, WY, MT, etc. models also encourage improvements so that those landowners can get the elk on their properties during hunting season and monetize that.

Seems that the New Mexico model allows more direct input and guidance from the department of game and fish than the access models.

No good solution but more animals on the landscape and landowners being encouraged to improve habitat is generally a good thing overall.

With that said, generally these thread devolve into a rich nonresidents are ruining hunting angle and that gets old. Nonresidents are not the enemy and being treated that way gets tiresome. NMWF is directly responsible for getting the rounding rules clarified to always round down and I'm not sure there are any nonresident youth tags available anymore. Most of those youth tags had 10 or 15 quotas and 15 X 6% = .9 tags so that means none available to nonresident youth. There were a few other tags affected but that rule really did stick it to those nonresident kids. Great job on that.

 

[Treeshark]

It wasn't my intent.

I hear you, I didn’t think it was (I removed before you posted). Agree with you that it is a concern overall.

 

[Nameless Range]

I once spoke to someone from Oregon about how silly it was that they couldn't pump their own gas. He began to defend it with claims of safety, and all the bad things that could happen if folks were allowed to do so. I pointed out how those claims don't really hold up in the face of how other states operate. This is how the arguments to continue to fleece the trust beneficiaries of NM feel to me.

Most reading this are viewing NM from the perspective of a NR, and it's true that NM's way of doing things is quite friendly to those with the resources to out-leverage the beneficiaries of NM's Trust. As stakeholder, their perspective matters.

But I know how I and other Montanans - the beneficiaries of our State's Public Trust as it pertains to wildlife - would feel if Montana tried to go such a way. The arguments would ring quite hollow- the data that such a model is generating a net benefit to us, the Trust Beneficiaries, quite dubious given what the last 100 years and other western states have shown.

 

[npaden]

I don't know. The arguments comparing the New Mexico elk herd to the ones in Nevada and Arizona are pretty compelling. All 3 of those states have water as a limiting factor. New Mexico directly rewards landowners for habitat improvements, and they have 104,000 elk on the landscape compared to 17,000 for Nevada and 35,000 for Arizona. That's double those 2 states combined. It really seems to be working from that perspective.

 

[Treeshark]

But I know how I and other Montanans - the beneficiaries of our State's Public Trust as it pertains to wildlife - would feel if Montana tried to go such a way.

I wonder if that is still true? I don’t know exactly what percentage of Montana residents hunt, but I’d imagine it’s quite high- let’s say 50%, but likely dropping.

The non-hunters in Montana are beneficiaries, too- they would be way better off with NM’s system.

 

[npaden]

Looking at this map of current elk range, it looks like New Mexico does have about the same amount of elk range as Nevada and Arizona combined. Kind of crazy that Arizona has 35,000 elk in that little strip of habitat and some of the biggest bulls in the world as well.

Nevada seems to be the lagger with a decent amount of habitat for only 17,500 elk.

 

[Nameless Range]

I wonder if that is still true? I don’t know exactly what percentage of Montana residents hunt, but I’d imagine it’s quite high- let’s say 50%, but likely dropping.

The non-hunters in Montana are beneficiaries, too- they would be way better off with NM’s system.

That isn't clear to me at all.

That said, I think non-hunters as beneficiaries is an interesting component, and many arguments leveraged for a NM model in their favor pivot cleanly to hunting in general being a negative to the public trust. If I remember right, the Bitterroot Elk Study showed Hunter Harvest being second only to predation for Elk Mortality.

I can't speak to the geography of NM, but though the NW MT portion of that RMEF Map is large and blue, it really doesn't describe distribution at all. Not all acres are created equal. Relative to some of the little blue islands in eastern MT, there's way less elk per acre. I'd be interested to hear what NMs think. Is the incentive to supply H20 to wildlife generating more opportunities to hunt for them? I'd also be interested if such an incentive could be something other than elk tags.

I'm not trying to make up a signal in the noise and respect everyone commenting, but I hear the exact same arguments in favor of privatization here as I do for the continued existence of NM. Montana has in its laws that the game animals of the state are to be managed primarily for the citizens of its state. In addition, in our constitution it is written: "the opportunity to harvest wild fish and wild game animals is a heritage that shall forever be preserved to the individual citizens of the state." I feel like these are good guides for why NMs model would be a net-negative to Montanans, and I view NM as a canary in the coal mine.

 

[Nameless Range]

One other thing that should fit into the calculus of whether or not such a model is a net benefit to the beneficiaries of a given state, is public access.

Over 7,000,000 acres of Montana’s private lands are accessible to the public for hunting - resident and non-resident alike - through our block management program . At least from what I have read and heard from folks in New Mexico, as well as other states with transferable tags, those programs cannot succeed at such a scale once transferable tags are an option for landowners.

 

[Treeshark]

those programs cannot succeed at such a scale once transferable tags are an option for landowners.

Why not? I believe it would work as well if not better than Block Management (which is not without its own significant issues and cost).

The edge definitely goes to NM unit-wide system when it comes to opening decent private land to the public in my opinion.

*I appreciate your perspective and the discussion, Nameless.

 

[Letthemgrow]

I don’t know exactly what percentage of Montana residents hunt, but I’d imagine it’s quite high- let’s say 50%, but likely dropping.

I don't think that's even close. 12-13% more likely.



The total number of hunting license sales also grew among Montana residents, from 121,982 in 2019 to 136,285 in 2021. - Flathead Beacon