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.
Your comment about the lack of transparency is spot on. For years me and others have simply asked the NM Game Commission to compel the Department of Game and Fish to issue an annual report detailing the disposition, public or private, resident or nonresident for all big game licenses sold in New Mexico. Such reporting has never occurred. That is why we took it upon ourselves to make the report, only for elk for now, ourselves. It took us 8 months and intervention by the NM Attorney General just to obtain from Game and Fish, what is public license data that should be readily available.It is certainly that here in NM. The system has no transparency, and when a landowner sells those tags he/she is not giving the State a cut past the sales tax, so it really does nothing to enhance the herd except through the NR licenses. The amounts of money are ridiculous - and the landowners are making money off of animals that belong to the people of the state. Supposedly that's who owns them.
David
NM
Even if one though E-plus, and the New Mexico system a good thing, I don't understand how anyone can think public agencies being resistant to sharing pertinent data is ok. Really baffling that citizens have to fight and litigate to see who their tax dollars are at work. I know NM is not alone in this.Your comment about the lack of transparency is spot on. For years me and others have simply asked the NM Game Commission to compel the Department of Game and Fish to issue an annual report detailing the disposition, public or private, resident or nonresident for all big game licenses sold in New Mexico. Such reporting has never occurred. That is why we took it upon ourselves to make the report, only for elk for now, ourselves. It took us 8 months and intervention by the NM Attorney General just to obtain from Game and Fish, what is public license data that should be readily available.
That is a good question. I don’t think they track it. The outfitter draw set aside was sold as a way to generate business for outfitters. And that business is good for all New Mexicans because of the jobs etc that it would create. But since the outfitter set aside was created the NM outfitting business has been in a race with itself to generate as little business per outfitter set aside tag as possible. At the beginning of the outfitter set aside, instead of hiring guides and providing guided hunts outfitters just rented out their outfitter number for applicants to buy better draw odds. For a couple of hundred bucks you could get better draw odds. It was a numbers game. Instead of selling guiding services for a couple of thousand dollars to a a small number of people an outfitter could make more money selling better draw odds to many more people for a few hundred dollars each. The head of the NM Council of Outfitters and Guides at the time was one of the biggest users of this business tactic. Some outfitters that wanted to sell actual hunts complained and rules were implemented that specified that two day of services must be provided. But the loopholes were so broad that an outfitted draw set aside hunt meant that the outfitter had to check in with the hunter. Then outfitter draw set aside where sold with the stipulation that the hunter had to check in with the outfitter during the hunt. No on the ground guiding services required. Just a phone call. Then the rules evolved to be that the hunter has to have a guide present for two days during the hunt. That the requirement today. A guide can show up in camp one afternoon and leave the next day and the outfitting requirement for an outfitter set aside tag had been met. Hence the “semi-guided” hunts you mention.Does NM have any idea how many outfitters are utilizing “semi guided” hunts providing little to no service except a contract and outfitter number for hunters to get into the outfitter draw pool?
I have always held that it is amazing that even people that benefit from our government privatizing our wildlife have such low expectations of government meeting its obligations to the citizens it supposedly represent and transparency. But when you look at the numbers in our report it’s pretty easy to understand why the Game Commission, Department of Game and Fish, and the beneficiaries of privatization would prefer to keep the data hidden. Within ours of our report coming out the Governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, was on the phone yelling at the Director of Game and Fish about it. Was her concern that New Mexicans are being ripped off by EPLUS? Hell no. After all it is her game commission under her direction doing the ripping off. Her concern was that the Director would “allow” us to publish our report and spill the beans so close to the election in which she was running for re-election. (As if we asked permission). The concern of our governor and her game commission (and our legislature that could stop it) is not that the system negatively it impacts the New Mexico public. It is that they have been exposed.Even if one though E-plus, and the New Mexico system a good thing, I don't understand how anyone can think public agencies being resistant to sharing pertinent data is ok. Really baffling that citizens have to fight and litigate to see who their tax dollars are at work. I know NM is not alone in this.
Gross receipts tax.Are landowners reporting the landowner tags sales as income on taxes?
I'd imagine just like many other industries in NM, there's a chunk of landowners who deal in cash only and don't report this income.Gross receipts tax.
Bet there are sacks of cash involved somewhere ,it's NM after all.
I heard one outfitter had 52 hunters put in with him ,through the pool, and 3 drew tags. Nice profit for nothing I bet. I have no idea what they are charging these days and I bet there is no refund.
The outfitter welfare must go,IMHO.
But I thought anything over $9999 had to be reported. It's not?I'd imagine just like many other industries in NM, there's a chunk of landowners who deal in cash only and don't report this income.
Can't tell you how many times I've been offered a lower price on services if I paid cash and didn't get a receipt.
That’s not the issue being debated or the point of the discussion. What’s being discussed is the State of NM’s failure to live up to its fiduciary responsibility to manage wildlife for the benefit of the people of the state. No one is trying to tell the man what he can do with his tags. The people here are expressing the opinion that if the State of NM took its role as trustee seriously, the man wouldn’t have tags to sell in the first place.Who are any of you to tell that man what he can or should do with his tags?
Every. Single. One.Are landowners reporting the landowner tags sales as income on taxes?
“Some states make them non-transferable beyond familyThat’s not the issue being debated or the point of the discussion. What’s being discussed is the State of NM’s failure to live up to its fiduciary responsibility to manage wildlife for the benefit of the people of the state. No one is trying to tell the man what he can do with his tags. The people here are expressing the opinion that if the State of NM took its role as trustee seriously, the man wouldn’t have tags to sell in the first place.
I think he’s calling into question the legitimacy and efficacy of the landowner tag program in NM, which is what I said above. The issues in this post are bigger than telling someone what to do with the tags he currently has the right to sell. The debate here is whether or not that program should even exist. And, if it should, ask the questions: Is it working as intended? Does providing a significant profit incentive for the landowner benefit the resource and the citizens of NM?“Some states make them non-transferable beyond family
“ Would be totally fine if they went away completely, and definitely think you shouldn't be allowed to sell them.”
Why don’t you give your expert analysis of this quote taken from another post on this very subject.
Exactly what is it you think this man is saying?
Banks have to report transactions over 10,000 or if more than normal activity for money laundering purposes. Technically you have to report finding a coin on the ground. 600 and larger requires issuing tax forms. I am not an accountant but I know one. Hope she let's me go back to new mexico and hunt someday.You and me both Hank. I believe the bank will automatically report to the Feds if that $10,000+ is deposited into an account, but that's an easy one to bypass.
I'm with you. Tax fraud isn't the kind of stupid game I'm willing to play.
Texas is a collection of private land holdings with only 4% public land. New Mexico has 47% public land. Millions of acres Federal and State plus GATE lease agreements that you too enjoy if the elk permits are UW. Consider that- we tax-paying, public land hunting residents are funding your private hunt.Very interesting.
I’ve been hunting elk in New Mexico for ten years.
Buy the tags from the same landowner.
Any New Mexico resident that wants to hunt that ranch can buy one too.
Who are any of you to tell that man what he can or should do with his tags?
His family have been ranchers on the same ground for generations.
I am a Non Resident hunter.
But the residents I know are always glad to see me when I arrive.
Happy hunting boys.
Good luck on that draw.
Not to mention that wildlife is a public trust resource owned by only and all citizens of each state. Privatization of licenses to hunt the New Mexico public’s wildlife is a blatant violation of both the public trust doctrine and closely related North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. You know, the reasons why have hunting for anyone besides the uber rich in this country.Texas is a collection of private land holdings with only 4% public land. New Mexico has 47% public land. Millions of acres Federal and State plus GATE lease agreements that you too enjoy if the elk permits are UW. Consider that- we tax-paying, public land hunting residents are funding your private hunt.
The allocation of E-plus is lopsided in favor of landowners. In a fair draw here, 86% of tags are allocated to residents. E-plus operates separate from the draw.
Additionally, tax reporting of those landowner tags sold privately isn’t tracked; E-Plus invites tax evasion. If the outfitter/ranch owner you use is an honest man, I’m sure they’ll share tax returns if requested.
Certainly private permits that provide great private privilege and revenue from the NM public’s wildlife with no direct NM public benefit requirement doesn’t even come close to passing the public trust sniff test.I think he’s calling into question the legitimacy and efficacy of the landowner tag program in NM, which is what I said above. The issues in this post are bigger than telling someone what to do with the tags he currently has the right to sell. The debate here is whether or not that program should even exist. And, if it should, ask the questions: Is it working as intended? Does providing a significant profit incentive for the landowner benefit the resource and the citizens of NM?
I’m no expert. But as a hunter who believes in the Public Trust Doctrine, I think the discussion is highly relevant.