New Mexico Privatization. Nuthin like it

[hank4elk]

...I could not give away a NM LO elk voucher 10 years ago.
I also could not afford to hunt out of state anymore and gave up.

 

[sjl2012]

I agree with some of what you say, to an extent, but I still don't think it's apples to apples. Wildlife are a public resource, held in trust by the residents of that state. That has been decided in federal courts time and time again. That changes the parameters of your analogy. I work in the Oil industry, heavily subsidized. But landowners still have rights. Residents of my state still have rights. Oil companies don't just get to come in and write up the regs and the operating contracts. They have to compete with other operators, be good neighbors, clean up their messes, drill responsibly, pay taxes, pay their leases, pay their mineral owners, and follows regulations. Most of the subsidies they get, that I'm aware of, don't relieve them of those responsibilities or allow them to circumvent what that state decides is ok.

And if all hunters had an extra 6-10k in their pockets only for elk tags in New Mexico, undoubtedly that would mean someone else could just pay that much more, and there's nothing to say that the average price of these codes wouldn't double, or triple. That would almost be inflationary in nature.

That's the thing about opening this can of worms. Someone is always willing to pay, some executive in Texas or wherever, is always able to pay more than the average person, always. If every state with elk could just start charging 5k+ for their elk tags, they'd still likely sell out. Does that mean they should do it? Does that mean they should ignore all the resident beneficiaries they are responsible to and just sell to people who can pay premium money.

Privatization is a perversion of how we do things in this country when it comes to wildlife and hunting. What industries the federal government pays subsidies to is irrelevant to this conversation in my opinion.

So the landowner gets to decide who he leases his oil rights to? Even if another person has said rights the current landowner still receives damages etc? I ask the question knowing the answer as I'm in the oil industry as well.

Privatization is, landowner control of access either through a trespass fee or a state issued tag, the norm in at least 40 of the 50 states if that's how you define it, which it appears to be how most define it in these threads. Growing up in AL and MS the only decent deer and turkey hunting I had access to was by leasing private property. Most public land wasn't controlled by bag limits or access and was a free for all with few animals. My view on EPLUS is that the state still controls the management of the elk herds to some degree by issuing limited tags in certain areas. Other parts they've completely turned control over to the landowners. I still say the quality of an elk hunt in New Mexico is far above most of the other states mentioned in this thread so far, some of that recognition needs to be given to NMDGF and their management of the public and private elk herds through EPLUS.

 

[Treeshark]

But the public resident of New Mexico owns 100% of the elk.

People tend to hold that up as if it’s gospel. But is it really true?

I think that is up for debate, or at the very least more nuanced.

 

[Treeshark]

I hope you and tree shark are going to Wisconsin meetings pushing for nonresident allocation. With Wisconsin only have resident elk tags to draw you guys should be at the forefront of getting that changed

I would 100% support every one our Wisconsin elk tags be auctioned off by RMEF or the state (as long as the proceeds went back to growing the elk population here).

It would be immensely helpful to our herd.

 

[TheTone]

I would 100% support every one our Wisconsin elk tags be auctioned off by RMEF or the state (as long as the proceeds went back to growing the elk population here).

It would be immensely helpful to our herd.

Yeah, why give the filthy common man that can’t bid the most a chance to hunt

Let’s sell every elk tag everywhere to the highest bidder because generating revenue is the reason we have hunting seasons and wildlife

 

[Treeshark]

Yeah, why give the filthy common man that can’t bid the most a chance to hunt

Let’s sell every elk tag everywhere to the highest bidder because generating revenue is the reason we have hunting seasons and wildlife

I get where you are coming from- but we have so few elk tags (and so few elk in general) that this would be very helpful at this point in time. Just my opinion.

 

[brocksw]

So the landowner gets to decide who he leases his oil rights to? Even if another person has said rights the current landowner still receives damages etc? I ask the question knowing the answer as I'm in the oil industry as well.

Sure, just like the landowner gets to decide who he gives access too for hunting. Again, he owns his land and I don't dispute that. What I'm saying is that your analogy of a subsidy still does not mean it's a free for all for that industry and they get whatever they want.

Besides, the landowner can charge a fee for what he owns, but he doesn't own the elk, the New Mexican public does. Which of course, he is a part of. But he has the same rights and carries the same weight in that discussion, as any other New Mexican.

So to me, by giving New Mexico landowners a 2 or 3 or 5 percent eplus set aside (instead of 40%), or getting something back like public access, that to me is a compromise that the beneficiary could tolerate. You get a small portion of our resource to sell and we get some degree of access to your property.

But 40%? Imagine running a private trust and giving away 40% of your trust corpus and seeing virtually 0 return for the trust. Those landowners are making millions of dollars, what do the beneficiaries get?

Privatization is, landowner control of access either through a trespass fee or a state issued tag, the norm in at least 40 of the 50 states if that's how you define it, which it appears to be how most define it in these threads.

I would agree that anyone, not just a landowner, an outfitter too, but anyone who is issued or guaranteed a tag that they are allowed to sell, and the monetary benefit of that tag does not go back to the trust corpus, would be privatization.


Perhaps, a more apt analogy for all this would be ground water. Most states require that when a landowner decides he wants to drill a water well, he has to obtain a permit, he has to use a certified contractor, he has to have an inspection done, etc. This is because it has been decided that water is a public resource and his neighbors are also beneficiaries of that resource. And if he acts irresponsibily, it could impact them, and they would have right to pursue legal action for not following the rules that we all agreed should be in place to protect the resource. So whatever he does that potentially impacts that aquifer needs to have some oversight and the other beneficiaries of that resource carry weight in that decision making.

If that landowner decides he wants to build a bottled water business and start sucking water out of the ground to the point that he negatively impacts that aquifer or doesn't receive approval from other beneficiaries. His neighbors have every right to sue his ass and probably the state for not managing their public resources in a way that benefits all beneficiaries. In fact, to my understand there are multiple lawsuits around the country right now around this very same topic. Then imagine the state coming in and saying 40% of the users of that aquifer have to get their water from that landowner. HA! What a crock of shit!

Just because you own a business or have bills to pay, doesn't mean you should get more of the public resource or get set asides from the government.

 

[brocksw]

public and private elk herds through EPLUS.

Someone provide a legal reference that proves me wrong, but as far as I'm aware, there is no such thing as a private elk herd unless it's a high fence operation and the elk are essentially livestock. All wild elk, whether on public land or private land, are held in trust for the residents of that state.

North American Model of Willdlife

pope-young.org

Martin vs Waddell (1842)

Martin v. Waddell, 41 U.S. 367 (1842)

Martin v. Waddell

supreme.justia.com

 

[brocksw]

I think I get both sides of the argument. I agree I don’t like privatization, as TOGIE and you say, but I also think it is a net positive that more elk are allowed on the landscape. New Mexico isn’t WY. It is much dryer and I would guess with the cycle of the grass you can’t run the same density of livestock. So elk can limit the stock grower more.

I agree with everything you say here. But 40% of the public's tags? That is highest in the country by 37%. Nevada is 2nd in the nation and allows 3% of their tags to be transferable. Utah allows 2%. but 40%? Again, no one in support of this system would have that same support if they didn't have the financial means to participate in it. Not one of these clowns would be okay with their own state giving away 40% of their tags to Non-Residents, much less to NR simply because they can write a check. Which is effectively what the NM system is doing.

 

[brocksw]

You can buy tags for the best units in the state for less than half that. You can buy fully outfitted hunts in pretty good units for less than half that. I feel confident that less than 10% of the landowner tags go for that price even including access and a fully guided hunt with room and board. I would bet that more tags go unused than go for $20K. To keep throwing out numbers like that doesn’t help your argument. At best it seems that you are trying to exaggerate things, at worst it seems that you are outright trying to mislead people.

You may very well be correct on your numbers. But I don't have to look hard at all to find the tags for 10-12k and the guided hunts for 20k. So while you may be right, I don't think it's disingenuous at all to say a lot of these tags essentially represent $20k to many of the eplus participants. And I feel pretty confident that whether or not the tag is 20k or 10k or 10k plus a 5k outfitter fee, whatever that price is, it isn't going to make a lick of difference for New Mexican residents who pay $90.00 for their resident elk tag and have to sit out because they can't pay 5k-150k to access the resource they own.

A fully outfitted private land elk hunt with a tag in Montana, Idaho, Colorado and New Mexico are all going to run about the same price.

And how many/what percent of the resident public's elk tags taken from the public and guaranteed to landowners in those other states? Regardless of price. Because IIRC, something like 70-80% of the entire nations transferable, landowner elk tags are in New Mexico.

 

[Treeshark]

Because IIRC, something like 70-80% of the entire nations transferable, landowner elk tags are in New Mexico.

Grow the denominator and this math problem vanishes.

 

[seeth07]

for New Mexican residents who pay $90.00 for their resident elk tag

Unit 48, a NM resident has over a 50% chance to draw a tag and almost 100% for a cow tag. Or they can buy one for $3500/$1000 if they don't. Yes, it's not otc general wyoming or montana elk tags but they also have 1/5 of the elk. If a NM resident isn't elk hunting at least every other year if not every year, it's their own fault.

 

[sjl2012]

I agree with everything you say here. But 40% of the public's tags? That is highest in the country by 37%. Nevada is 2nd in the nation and allows 3% of their tags to be transferable. Utah allows 2%. but 40%? Again, no one in support of this system would have that same support if they didn't have the financial means to participate in it. Not one of these clowns would be okay with their own state giving away 40% of their tags to Non-Residents, much less to NR simply because they can write a check. Which is effectively what the NM system is doing.

How much of the elk habitat in New Mexico is privately owned versus the States we're comparing here? Also, I'm guessing the next step is to take all of the Indian Reservation tags and put them in a public draw too?

 

[brocksw]

How much of the elk habitat in New Mexico is privately owned versus the States we're comparing here? Also, I'm guessing the next step is to take all of the Indian Reservation tags and put them in a public draw too?

I'm not sure exactly. But these graphics sure make it look like a good chunk of the primary elk habitat is public land. But again, it doesn't matter. The public owns 100% of the elk, regardless of whether or not they're on private or public land. If you don't agree, lawyer up and take it to the supreme court and try and overturn 180 years of case law.

Tribes are sovereign nations. Different conversation and certainly when it comes to case law and statute.

 

[YoungGun]

I would 100% support every one our Wisconsin elk tags be auctioned off by RMEF or the state (as long as the proceeds went back to growing the elk population here).

It would be immensely helpful to our herd.

Yeah, F this kid. She should have had to have paid top dollar to make a lifetime memory with her dad.

WI ELK, the story of a once in a lifetime hunt

We were starting to think that all the elk had decided to go on vacation and leave the area. Then before you know it, we were back on good sign. That nice pine tree was all tore up, and there was some very fresh track, so maybe we were in the right area. However the sun was out that day and...

www.hunttalk.com

 

[Treeshark]

Super happy for that kid!

I would love for many more to get to experience that- I feel that the best way to do that is by growing the elk population.

What about next year when this kid doesn’t draw? That’s where a system like NM E-Plus is really helpful.

 

[YoungGun]

I agree- and I believe there are better ways to grow the herd AND incentivize private landowners to be stewards of the resource than what New Mexico is doing. If the state wanted to give tags to landowners on a 1:1 basis, for how many random-publicly drawn average Joe hunters were successful on their property the year prior, I don't think we'd be having this back and forth, as the public hunters would be getting access to otherwise off limits elk, and the land owners would be incentivized to ensure those random hunters are having as good of shot as possible to harvest, instead of giving tags to a guy with 17 acres that won't be hunted anyway to sell for his own profit.

 

[SAJ-99]

I agree with everything you say here. But 40% of the public's tags? That is highest in the country by 37%. Nevada is 2nd in the nation and allows 3% of their tags to be transferable. Utah allows 2%. but 40%? Again, no one in support of this system would have that same support if they didn't have the financial means to participate in it. Not one of these clowns would be okay with their own state giving away 40% of their tags to Non-Residents, much less to NR simply because they can write a check. Which is effectively what the NM system is doing.

40% is high, but I would only correct to say it isn't NRs. NRs mostly buy those set asides, but as others have pointed out those are not specific NR tags and Rs can purchase. This isn't about R vs NR vs Outfitter vs Landowner. What the argument seems to be is the system excludes those without $ means. I agree that the NAM was set up so every citizen could participate, regardless of income. The only question in NM is to what degree and how to distribute. I think every state struggles with this. Capitalism itself is a paradox that creates the seeds of its own destruction without constant adjustments.

 

[npaden]

The answer is somewhere between what abqbw and Treeshark want. I think most of us can see that.

When you consider the alternative options in New Mexico specifically, Deer, Pronghorn and Elk outside of their core area are all unlimited tags available to the landowner. You read that correctly "unlimited". A landowner with 100 acres could sell 1,000 vouchers for people to hunt his property if they wanted to.

Compared to that system, E-Plus seems saintly.

Elk for some reason are considered to be more a more valuable resource to both the landowners and the public hunters. The E-Plus system is an attempt to navigate that divide. I still say the end result isn't dramatically different than landowners leasing out their land or charging trespass fees but I might be the only one that thinks that way.

 

[brocksw]

I agree- and I believe there are better ways to grow the herd AND incentivize private landowners to be stewards of the resource than what New Mexico is doing. If the state wanted to give tags to landowners on a 1:1 basis, for how many random-publicly drawn average Joe hunters were successful on their property the year prior, I don't think we'd be having this back and forth, as the public hunters would be getting access to otherwise off limits elk, and the land owners would be incentivized to ensure those random hunters are having as good of shot as possible to harvest, instead of giving tags to a guy with 17 acres that won't be hunted anyway to sell for his own profit.

Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Arizona, are all have growing or steady elk populations. This idea that we have to pimp out 40% of the elk to premium purchasers to make a herd grow is complete and utter nonsense.

New Mexico Pronghorn populations are decreasing and they have a 67% set aside for landowners.
NM Deer are decreasing as well and I'm guessing the set aside for deer is not 0% but I don't know the exact number.

Do I think it is because the landowner tag system is failing Pronghorn or Deer? No. Like in other states, populations change for many reasons. Nevada just lost a bunch of elk because of drought. Colorado because of landscape competition and human development.

40% is high, but I would only correct to say it isn't NRs. NRs mostly buy those set asides, but as others have pointed out those are not specific NR tags and Rs can purchase. This isn't about R vs NR vs Outfitter vs Landowner. What the argument seems to be is the system excludes those without $ means. I agree that the NAM was set up so every citizen could participate, regardless of income. The only question in NM is to what degree and how to distribute. I think every state struggles with this. Capitalism itself is a paradox that creates the seeds of its own destruction without constant adjustments.

I believe current estimates actually say 35%+ of all NM elk tags are going to NR. Something relevant to this conversation is that New Mexico is one of the poorest state in the nation per capita and yet I would guess that because of the eplus system, their average Elk tag price across all elk tags is probably the highest.