Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
An elk tag might be cheaper (for the state) than paying crop damage to land owners for the herd of elk that summers in their alfalfa fields. If you take that tag away you are going to have to offer something else in its place.I think it’s a poor excuse to say nothing will probably change so why try? There’s a cost to silence and a cost to using your voice. Each one of us gets up every morning and decides which bill we’re going to pay.
Yes, but those 11,000+ landowner and outfitter tags going to nonresidents generate $650ish probably on average for the department of game and fish. The same tags going to residents would generate $90. Well over $5,000,000 more for the game and fish selling them to nonresidents.But that money pails in comparison I’d bet in comparison to what the landowner is making off the tag
But deer and pronghorn are private land only, right? Unless they have a ranch wide agreement for pronghorn, in which case I'm not sure how many tags they get but I don't think it is unlimited. I think private-only elk tags would be more accepted by the masses than the unit wide tags.Yes, but those 11,000+ landowner and outfitter tags going to nonresidents generate $650ish probably on average for the department of game and fish. The same tags going to residents would generate $90. Well over $5,000,000 more for the game and fish selling them to nonresidents.
The report doesn't even look at deer and pronghorn. The way it is right now the landowners can give out unlimited tags for those in most units. I can guarantee that mostly nonresidents are buying those as well.
Landowners should always be able to sell access. That’s a right that comes with owning property. They shouldn’t be able to sell elk. Wildlife is not a property right and is supposed to be a public resource.An elk tag might be cheaper (for the state) than paying crop damage to land owners for the herd of elk that summers in their alfalfa fields. If you take that tag away you are going to have to offer something else in its place.
If an outfitter is buying tags from a landowner and offering private land hunts that is reducing public land crowding. I think every state offers some sort of landowner Habitat incentive for tags. And that tag market is simply economics. How much does someone want to pay ?
Not really, but I will.@hank4elk , care to comment?
No just stating my opinion of where it's likely to go. Also that the document really paints a one sided picture and hearing from hank now helps paint a little bit of the other side of itYou’ve already decided the outcome is determined.
Thanks for posting your informed and detailed perspective. And kudos to the moon for enhancing elk habitat on your property.This is all from NMWF and THEIR perspective. The land of entitlement. Residents want all the tags from what I hear. OK.
NMG&F does not support it nor does the Gov. or the commission from what I have seen. NM Beef is against it I bet and that's a big lobby. Way bigger than the outfitter pool $ that for sure against it.
The numbers they post do not show the $ lost for NMG&F either. Most states make a ton on NR, NM makes nada on residents.
I'd be happy if the residents tags $ went up to meet reality too.
I'm a resident and could still apply. I have one other family member who hunts so if it becomes nontransferable I can deal with it. If I get none I can deal with it.
If it goes all LO tags go to residents fine by me. Keep the outfitters out of it then.
See how many places get shut down if it does happen.
Who leases a ranch when you don't know if you drew a tag? All action post draw? Bet most residents will decline to even pay a trespass/hunt fee.
Either way the critters seem to love my place, the water and the restored range feed.
The vast majority of the private elk tags are not unit wide. I think it is around 20% that are unit wide.But deer and pronghorn are private land only, right? Unless they have a ranch wide agreement for pronghorn, in which case I'm not sure how many tags they get but I don't think it is unlimited. I think private-only elk tags would be more accepted by the masses than the unit wide tags.
Of those 82 percent that are ranch only, let's say they all went away. Would that actually lead to more resident tags off those ranches? After 1 year, probably none right? After 5 years maybe surrounding area has more elk and they issue more tags? Idk, interesting seeing rhat breakdown2,638 of the 15,356 EPlus authorizations are for unit wide tags. 17.1%.
So 82.9% of them are ranch only.