Privatization kills both Resident and Nonresident DIY hunting opportunity

[hank4elk]

I’m not eloquent! I make a twenty word simple statement into a 1000 word confusing and redundant mess!

I've been told I send deposistions , not texts....LOL

 

[ImBillT]

I've been told I send deposistions , not texts....LOL

I forgot to mention one of your questions.

One of my suggestions was to make a potential hunter choose how they wanted to acquire a tag. Either you go into the draw, and cannot validate a land owner authorization, or you don’t go into the draw and you can validate a landowner authorization. It’s not a suggestion that a landowner cannot receive an authorization to give away or sell. I see how that could be irritating, but it would allow the public to benefit from land owner authorizations. Currently land owner authorizations and other forms of private land hunting do not reduce demand in the public draw. A very high percentage of hunters who purchase land owner authorizations, or OTC tags for deer or pronghorn applied in the draw and failed to draw, but still went hunting. The situation incentivizes everyone to apply in the draw even those who have a means to obtaining a tag which is beyond the reach of most of the public. Arguments could be made either way. I’m not making an argument that one is right or wrong. What I’m suggesting is that if one could either apply for elk or validate a land owner authorization, it would increase draw odds in the draw as if those 20k-ish tags had been in the draw. By allowing applicants to apply and simply purchase a landowner authorization as a backup option, those tags are not impacting draw odds or benefitting the average public hunter. Just to clarify, the land owner would still get his authorizations even if he applied, he simply would not be allowed to use it for himself(or give/sell it to someone who applied), and it would only apply to the species in question. Apply for elk, you can’t buy a “private elk tag”. Apply for deer, you can’t buy a private only deer tag.

 

[David58]

I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out what the win-win is in this. Any changes are going to take from one group and give to another.

Am I hearing in this, that if a landowner has UW vouchers, that he has to allow the hunting public to use his land? Or, put differently, is permission to hunt required for hunters in that unit if the landowner received UW tags?

Does the landowner have the option to receive RO or UW tags, per his/her/its choice?

David
NM

 

[cedahm]

Am I hearing in this, that if a landowner has UW vouchers, that he has to allow the hunting public to use his land?

this is correct:

Elk Private Lands - EPLUS - NMDGF

Introduction Hunters Landowners Mgmt Zone Map Unit-Wide Map Introduction EPLUS Program The EPLUS program was created in recognition of the important benefits that private lands make to the elk populations and hunting opportunities in

www.wildlife.state.nm.us

Now, anecdotally, the one time 2 years ago that we were even close to a UW enrolled ranch (we were standing on a bordering state land piece, accessed through a USFS road the first time their crew bugged us for being there), the ranch ‘agents’ (guide in this case) violated bullet points 3,4,5 and 6 above AND one of their guys that was in the process of violating bullet 4/5 shot at a bull out of the truck within 100 yards of us.

one anecdote doesn’t mean there aren’t fair UW operators, but I have a hard time believing it was an isolated incident.

 

[ImBillT]

I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out what the win-win is in this. Any changes are going to take from one group and give to another.

Am I hearing in this, that if a landowner has UW vouchers, that he has to allow the hunting public to use his land? Or, put differently, is permission to hunt required for hunters in that unit if the landowner received UW tags?

Does the landowner have the option to receive RO or UW tags, per his/her/its choice?

David
NM

Currently if the ranch gets UW tags, then every hunter who has a UW or draw elk tag for that unit gets access to that ranch. That doesn’t mean ranchers won’t tell you otherwise. I have been cursed out and threatened by multiple people leasing NM State Trust Land claiming that I could not hunt there without their permission.

Currently the land owner gets to decide if his tags will be UW or RO.

I would prefer some sort of incentive to make more tags UW, or at least allow pass through to public land on designated roads if public land borders a ranch receiving elk authorizations. I would also be perfectly fine with designating portions of the ranch as off-limits to hunters(with an appropriate tag reduction depending on how much and what kind of property we’re talking about). I think that would actually make UW tags more palatable to a lot of ranchers. If I owned a ranch I wouldn’t want strangers hunting or shooting around my house, my barn, my solar panel, my pens, or driving up and down my driveway.

I suppose if you wanted to play real hardball with landowners you could take the stance of “they’re our elk, and it’s your land, so you can’t hunt our elk unless you let us hunt your land” and that would still be a better compromise than not giving land owners any elk authorizations at all. That said, the elk don’t belong to resident elk hunters, they belong to all residents. The public trust doctrine doesn’t necessarily apply only to tags. A lot of NM residents don’t care who gets what tag. A lot of them might just prefer that hunting didn’t take place at all. I think using the public trust doctrine to attack non-reaident hunters, or land owners, especially resident land owners is something we should all be careful with.

 

[bulldawg10]

I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out what the win-win is in this. Any changes are going to take from one group and give to another.
David
NM

Yes, currently a landowner registers his property as ranch only or unit wide. Land owners choice.

If he is unit wide, every legal elk hunter in that unit is granted permission to use that private land to hunt elk. No other permissions needed other than a tag.

There are 600,000 acres nearly in New Mexico that are private ranches open to the legal tag holding public already as unit wide.

You can now easily pull up a list and a map and go hunt any unit wide ranch with your public land tag.

The landowner tags do not take from the public land hunter in New Mexico. They create more opportunities by allowing, encouraging, and sustaining elk, resulting in larger herd numbers...which in turn mean more public land tags too.

 

[bulldawg10]

Yes, currently a landowner registers his property as ranch only or unit wide. Land owners choice.

If he is unit wide, every legal elk hunter in that unit is granted permission to use that private land to hunt elk. No other permissions needed other than a tag.

There are 600,000 acres nearly in New Mexico that are private ranches open to the legal tag holding public already as unit wide.

You can now easily pull up a list and a map and go hunt any unit wide ranch with your public land tag.

The landowner tags do not take from the public land hunter in New Mexico. They create more opportunities by allowing, encouraging, and sustaining elk, resulting in larger herd numbers...which in turn mean more public land tags too.

I hunted on a couple smaller unit wide ranches last year (with a draw tag) and saw elk and hunted on a 10,000 acre ranch the year before that was ranch only.

I sure wish that Ranch Only property would go unit wide. It would provide great hunting but also tremendous Gila access behind it.

This year I have thousands of acres scoped out in two more units to hunt unit wide ranches, if I get lucky.

 

[NMGuy]

At what point does a license price increase negatively impact the " hunters of average means" that the OP posted about? There is already a bill in this session to raise the price of hunting licenses because NMGF is underfunded. If we remove ePLUS licenses, there is a large chunk of lost revenue for NMGF. Is the " hunters of average means" going to be ok with a $200 elk tag? How about $300? Do we place that burden on the shoulders of NR hunters as other states have done?

Now combine that with still not consistently drawing an elk tag. How does support of this proposal look then?

This is not an argument in favor of keeping ePLUS (although I'm sure some with take it that way), this is merely a point of discussion.

 

[David58]

At what point does a license price increase negatively impact the " hunters of average means" that the OP posted about? There is already a bill in this session to raise the price of hunting licenses because NMGF is underfunded. If we remove ePLUS licenses, there is a large chunk of lost revenue for NMGF. Is the " hunters of average means" going to be ok with a $200 elk tag? How about $300? Do we place that burden on the shoulders of NR hunters as other states have done?

Now combine that with still not consistently drawing an elk tag. How does support of this proposal look then?

This is not an argument in favor of keeping ePLUS (although I'm sure some with take it that way), this is merely a point of discussion.

Tag prices for residents are reasonable, and are dirt cheap for nonresidents. In my humble opinion.

I won't go into my opinions of the sixty days of darkness that is our current legislative session. Those guys and gals can do more damage in the 90 days they are in session over the two years than one could imagine as a civilian.

Tags for residents could double, and the price would still be reasonable if the opportunity to hunt increased. To increase the tag prices with no increase in opportunity, and with almost half of all tags going to NRs, deserves a riot (speaking metaphorically, now).

If you don't want to increase resident opportunity, then jack the hell out of the NR tag price. The wealthy outfitted hunters are not going to notice a $500 or $1000 increase in tag price, not when a hunt is costing $7-20K.

David
NM

 

[bulldawg10]

Tag prices for residents are reasonable, and are dirt cheap for nonresidents. In my humble opinion.

I won't go into my opinions of the sixty days of darkness that is our current legislative session. Those guys and gals can do more damage in the 90 days they are in session over the two years than one could imagine as a civilian.

Tags for residents could double, and the price would still be reasonable if the opportunity to hunt increased. To increase the tag prices with no increase in opportunity, and with almost half of all tags going to NRs, deserves a riot (speaking metaphorically, now).

If you don't want to increase resident opportunity, then jack the hell out of the NR tag price. The wealthy outfitted hunters are not going to notice a $500 or $1000 increase in tag price, not when a hunt is costing $7-20K.

David
NM

I want to know your thoughts on the Unit Wide Ranches, as it seems you didn't realize landowners had to open up their properties to ALL legal tag holders. Pretty good deal right! And there is already nearly 600,000 acres in unitwide private land available to you, and everyone else.

If you look at the map or the list, there are great properties that are available to publicly hunt, which is private ground in nearly every unit.

 

[David58]

I want to know your thoughts on the Unit Wide Ranches, as it seems you didn't realize landowners had to open up their properties to ALL legal tag holders. Pretty good deal right! And there is already nearly 600,000 acres in unitwide private land available to you, and everyone else.

If you look at the map or the list, there are great properties that are available to publicly hunt, which is private ground in nearly every unit.

UW ranches are an interesting concept to me, since most of the private land I see is posted. Some are too small to be RO hunting, so it appears they are dipping into both punch bowls.

If the land is posted, even if the magic map says they are UW, I generally respect the sign. Country boy rules, I guess.

UW or RO, doesn't change the question I answered when I said if opportunity (more tags) isn't improved. Don't raise resident tags and jack the hell out of nonresident. If NMGF needs more money, suck it off of those that are willing to pay $$$$ to hunt here. And add a surtax to guides and outfitters - when my money can't get me a hunt with a local outfitter, just because I am local, my sympathy for outfitters goes down the toilet.

But UW or RO, no matter in this part of the discussion - don't raise tag prices on residents without increasing opportunity. The legislature should like that, since they aren't negatively impacting their precious voters.

David
NM

 

[sjl2012]

Currently if the ranch gets UW tags, then every hunter who has a UW or draw elk tag for that unit gets access to that ranch. That doesn’t mean ranchers won’t tell you otherwise. I have been cursed out and threatened by multiple people leasing NM State Trust Land claiming that I could not hunt there without their permission.

Currently the land owner gets to decide if his tags will be UW or RO.

I would prefer some sort of incentive to make more tags UW, or at least allow pass through to public land on designated roads if public land borders a ranch receiving elk authorizations. I would also be perfectly fine with designating portions of the ranch as off-limits to hunters(with an appropriate tag reduction depending on how much and what kind of property we’re talking about). I think that would actually make UW tags more palatable to a lot of ranchers. If I owned a ranch I wouldn’t want strangers hunting or shooting around my house, my barn, my solar panel, my pens, or driving up and down my driveway.

I suppose if you wanted to play real hardball with landowners you could take the stance of “they’re our elk, and it’s your land, so you can’t hunt our elk unless you let us hunt your land” and that would still be a better compromise than not giving land owners any elk authorizations at all. That said, the elk don’t belong to resident elk hunters, they belong to all residents. The public trust doctrine doesn’t necessarily apply only to tags. A lot of NM residents don’t care who gets what tag. A lot of them might just prefer that hunting didn’t take place at all. I think using the public trust doctrine to attack non-reaident hunters, or land owners, especially resident land owners is something we should all be careful with.

I think most landowners look at how the general public treats the public access property and say "If this is the way they treat this, no way I'm allowing these people on my property". It's unfortunate but true. Maybe that's why I put more value on the best management of the resource than the current trustee. This generation of trustee is more self serving than the last and would just as soon trash the place and take everything they want than be concerned about what's left for the next.

 

[bulldawg10]

UW ranches are an interesting concept to me, since most of the private land I see is posted. Some are too small to be RO hunting, so it appears they are dipping into both punch bowls.

If the land is posted, even if the magic map says they are UW, I generally respect the sign. Country boy rules, I guess.

UW or RO, doesn't change the question I answered when I said if opportunity (more tags) isn't improved. Don't raise resident tags and jack the hell out of nonresident. If NMGF needs more money, suck it off of those that are willing to pay $$$$ to hunt here. And add a surtax to guides and outfitters - when my money can't get me a hunt with a local outfitter, just because I am local, my sympathy for outfitters goes down the toilet.

But UW or RO, no matter in this part of the discussion - don't raise tag prices on residents without increasing opportunity. The legislature should like that, since they aren't negatively impacting their precious voters.

David
NM

Of course the land is posted. But you have permission...if a land owner told you directly, that you had access in any other scenario, his private land would still be posted as anyone without permission still shouldn't be there and would be trespassing.

In unit wide, you have written permission by way of your tag, and the landowners agreement with NMDGF. And your permission is only good for the time of your tag and two days prior for scouting. It also allows those in your hunting party.

Those no trespassing signs still apply to everyone else such others hunting different species, non-tag holders not in your party, and you when your tag expires or the season ends....so of course those private lands are still posted. And they should remain posted.

There is a very fair game setup here for you to hunt that private land....if you don't want to because of a no trespass sign that doesn't apply to you as a legal hunter....that's your issue. Not a program issue.

 

[bulldawg10]

I think most landowners look at how the general public treats the public access property and say "If this is the way they treat this, no way I'm allowing these people on my property". It's unfortunate but true. Maybe that's why I put more value on the best management of the resource than the current trustee. This generation of trustee is more self serving than the last and would just as soon trash the place and take everything they want than be concerned about what's left for the next.

Very true statement....definitely a concern as a landowner for sure. It's one of my main concerns in Unit Wide.

 

[bulldawg10]

UW ranches are an interesting concept to me, since most of the private land I see is posted. Some are too small to be RO hunting, so it appears they are dipping into both punch bowls.

If the land is posted, even if the magic map says they are UW, I generally respect the sign. Country boy rules, I guess.

UW or RO, doesn't change the question I answered when I said if opportunity (more tags) isn't improved. Don't raise resident tags and jack the hell out of nonresident. If NMGF needs more money, suck it off of those that are willing to pay $$$$ to hunt here. And add a surtax to guides and outfitters - when my money can't get me a hunt with a local outfitter, just because I am local, my sympathy for outfitters goes down the toilet.

But UW or RO, no matter in this part of the discussion - don't raise tag prices on residents without increasing opportunity. The legislature should like that, since they aren't negatively impacting their precious voters.

David
NM

I hunted on a 20 acre Unit Wide property last season....it had one of the best water holes around (Which is why it was in the program and also a rarity among qualifying properties). I had elk come to it, and cattle were fenced out. I could have taken elk there, on 20 acres. I saw no other hunters on that 20 acres, it was also posted. I just hopped the fence and had a couple good hunts.

 

[David58]

Of course the land is posted. But you have permission...if a land owner told you directly, that you had access in any other scenario, his private land would still be posted as anyone without permission still shouldn't be there and would be trespassing.

In unit wide, you have written permission by way of your tag, and the landowners agreement with NMDGF. And your permission is only good for the time of your tag and two days prior for scouting. It also allows those in your hunting party.

Those no trespassing signs still apply to everyone else such others hunting different species, non-tag holders not in your party, and you when your tag expires or the season ends....so of course those private lands are still posted. And they should remain posted.

There is a very fair game setup here for you to hunt that private land....if you don't want to because of a no trespass sign that doesn't apply to you as a legal hunter....that's your issue. Not a program issue.

Sounds good in theory, until you read NMDGF's disclaimer on their map about it's accuracy. I ain't settin' foot on somebody's land if it's fenced and posted without asking, and if OnX marks it private I still ain't hunting it without direct permission. I ain't big enough or mean enough to deal with a "misunderstanding" on the part of either of us. NMDGF has washed their hands of it in their disclaimer, and I don't want to play in the legal system to straighten that out.

 

[ImBillT]

Sounds good in theory, until you read NMDGF's disclaimer on their map about it's accuracy. I ain't settin' foot on somebody's land if it's fenced and posted without asking, and if OnX marks it private I still ain't hunting it without direct permission. I ain't big enough or mean enough to deal with a "misunderstanding" on the part of either of us. NMDGF has washed their hands of it in their disclaimer, and I don't want to play in the legal system to straighten that out.

Call a GW and ask. Takes 10-15 minutes. Now you’ve confirmed all the UW ranch boundaries. Do it before the season. Problem solved.

I have called a GW, Co Sherriff, Stand Land Board, and even Co Tax assessor during the season over being denied access. I’ve texted screenshots of OnX and CarryMap as well.