Hunt Talk Radio - Look for it on your favorite Podcast platform

Take Back Your Elk

Kind of like the real estate ad for the 40 ac place that gets 15 tags. A little bit of research proved that wrong, fake, disingenuous in a few short minutes but not before it got thrown out as fact on a podcast and internet thread....;)
I’ve never seen anyone say a 40 acre tract got 15 tags. But I’ve seen 40 acres get 3 tags before. However, in the secondary management zone private land tags are unlimited. A 15 acre property could issue 200 tags if it wanted to.
 
I’ve never seen anyone say a 40 acre tract got 15 tags. But I’ve seen 40 acres get 3 tags before. However, in the secondary management zone private land tags are unlimited. A 15 acre property could issue 200 tags if it wanted to.

Here ya go. Straight from NMDGFs 2021 EPLUS landowner list 40 acres, 3 elk permit authorizations. It’s in GMU 15. The Gila. Unit wide permits. 40 acres of private land given 3 permits valid to hunt the entire approx million acres of the 77% public land GMU. A mature bull, a cow, and an ES archery permit.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_5808.jpeg
    IMG_5808.jpeg
    43.2 KB · Views: 12
So what you are showing are the habitat incentives...

These are projects encouraged by NMDGF to help support elk.

This is not the norm of every 40 acre or even 400 acre ranch in the program.

These are property owners that most likely went the extra mile on expense and work to do significant improvements for elk.

Water, Fencing, Feed, Cattle Reduction, etc.

It is very misleading to make this look like the norm.

Here is the program and descriptions of the habitat incentive that NMDGF is looking for...and encouraging Landowners to do, as it helps all elk and elk hunters.

 
Last edited:
I’ve never seen anyone say a 40 acre tract got 15 tags. But I’ve seen 40 acres get 3 tags before. However, in the secondary management zone private land tags are unlimited. A 15 acre property could issue 200 tags if it wanted to.



@abqbw Page 7 of this thread, the real estate ad Jesse sent to Randy for the podcast you were part of, granted you didn't agree or disagree with the comment but you were part of the conversation. I also fully disagree with the secondary zone being unlimited, I do believe that is detrimental to the elk herd, especially in the Northeast corner of the state, that is a bad management practice that is abused by some.

And on the Habitat incentive above, I'm not sure what the issue is there on the printout but the entire 221 elk occupied acres of that ranch is unit wide, including the agricultural fields. Out of respect for the landowner and his business I'm not going to name the place, but there is more to it than simply 40 acres getting 3 tags.


1711551473819.png
 
@abqbw Page 7 of this thread, the real estate ad Jesse sent to Randy for the podcast you were part of, granted you didn't agree or disagree with the comment but you were part of the conversation. I also fully disagree with the secondary zone being unlimited, I do believe that is detrimental to the elk herd, especially in the Northeast corner of the state, that is a bad management practice that is abused by some.

And on the Habitat incentive above, I'm not sure what the issue is there on the printout but the entire 221 elk occupied acres of that ranch is unit wide, including the agricultural fields. Out of respect for the landowner and his business I'm not going to name the place, but there is more to it than simply 40 acres getting 3 tags.


View attachment 320494
So it’s still 43ac by title, the rest being leased, correct?
 
It appears to be 2 different landowners with the tags going to one. A lot of incentive work, as in it checks every box for elk habitat improvement in the last 3 years.
 
@abqbw Page 7 of this thread, the real estate ad Jesse sent to Randy for the podcast you were part of, granted you didn't agree or disagree with the comment but you were part of the conversation. I also fully disagree with the secondary zone being unlimited, I do believe that is detrimental to the elk herd, especially in the Northeast corner of the state, that is a bad management practice that is abused by some.

And on the Habitat incentive above, I'm not sure what the issue is there on the printout but the entire 221 elk occupied acres of that ranch is unit wide, including the agricultural fields. Out of respect for the landowner and his business I'm not going to name the place, but there is more to it than simply 40 acres getting 3 tags.


View attachment 320494
You are splitting hairs. New Mexico issues far more transferable private landowner elk tags than all other western states combined. End of story. Who cares about this one instance and post about it? It is irrelevant.

We have maybe 3% or 4% of the all the elk tags in the west. And 65% or so of all the private transferable elk tags.
 
New Mexico issues far more transferable private landowner elk tags than all other western states combined.

True for right now, but it looks like others will be joining them in the near future (WY and MT).

New Mexico’s tag system is one of the best (if not the best) in the west. No need to mess with things when they are working so well.
 
True for right now, but it looks like others will be joining them in the near future (WY and MT).

New Mexico’s tag system is one of the best (if not the best) in the west. No need to mess with things when they are working so well.

I don't think your assessment of MT is correct, and even if the legislature abandoned their constituents in such a way, I'd wager a citizen's initiative would reverse it in subsequent years.

10 years ago in a Montana where hunters were less aware of the shenanigans than they are now, Montanans abolished guaranteed outfitter tags via citizens initiative, though the sausage-makers have tried to dink and dunk their way back into them.
 
I don't think your assessment of MT is correct, and even if the legislature abandoned their constituents in such a way, I'd wager a citizen's initiative would reverse it in subsequent years.

10 years ago in a Montana where hunters were less aware of the shenanigans than they are now, Montanans abolished guaranteed outfitter tags via citizens initiative, though the sausage-makers have tried to dink and dunk their way back into them.
Correct, and same with Wyoming. Any legislators that think the nonsense that is going on in New Mexico is a good idea is going to find themselves unelected.

The information age doesn't allow crap to fly under the radar like it used to.
 
Correct, and same with Wyoming. Any legislators that think the nonsense that is going on in New Mexico is a good idea is going to find themselves unelected.

The information age doesn't allow crap to fly under the radar like it used to.
81 extremely good hunting license authorizations are issued in Wyoming though that are taken away from the public draw. Not sure the history nor the changes made to these over the years however as I'm uneducated on the topic so perhaps this was before the information age you bring up and it can't fly under the radar anymore

 
81 extremely good hunting license authorizations are issued in Wyoming though that are taken away from the public draw. Not sure the history nor the changes made to these over the years however as I'm uneducated on the topic so perhaps this was before the information age you bring up and it can't fly under the radar anymore

Way long time ago, and it can be more than 81 depending on commissioners coming and going.
 
Way long time ago, and it can be more than 81 depending on commissioners coming and going.

The commission licenses also have some sideboards relative to who can and cannot recieve them. Gov tags/Auction tags require 90% of the revenue to go back to the agency.

If the issue at heart for landowners is they need the financial recognition for stewardship, why not just hand over cash and avoid the issue of licenses? End of the day, money is money and if that's the issue - it's far less hassle to accept a direct deposit than market & sell tags.
 
Last edited:
The commission licenses also have some sideboards relative to who can and cannot recieve them. Gov tags/Auction tags require 90% of the revenue to go back to the agency.

If the issue at heart for landowners is they need the financial recognition for stewardship, why not just hand over cash and avoid the issue of licenses? End of the day, money is money and if that's the issue - it's far less hassle to accept a direct deposition than market & sell tags.
Actually, the commission licenses have essentially no sideboards.

The Gov tags do NOT come back to the Agency, the Agency can apply for grants through the WYLDLIFE foundation to get grants from it, but no, it doesn't go back to the GF.
 
Actually, the commission licenses have essentially no sideboards.

The Gov tags do NOT come back to the Agency, the Agency can apply for grants through the WYLDLIFE foundation to get grants from it, but no, it doesn't go back to the GF.

Holy cow, Buzz. I was going off of memory from back in the day and just googled the statute: https://codes.findlaw.com/wy/title-23-game-and-fish/wy-st-sect-23-1-705/

The commissioners tags are still required to go to nonprofits though, if I read the statute right?
 
Is the Oyster Ridge concert a non profit? Predator control boards? Just to name a few.

Like I said the sideboards are more a set of suggestions than actual rules.

In regards to Commission licenses: if those are not nonprofits, then the statute says they can't get them. Seems like someone should be talking to WGFD's legal staff.

Oyster Ridge is a 501 (C)(3): https://donorbox.org/oyster-ridge-music-festival-donations

IIRC the county predator boards were quasi-governmental organizations that recieved funding from state agencies as well as the AMDB and such. I don't see how they are eligible for Commissioner licenses?

(g) In addition to complimentary licenses under subsection (a) of this section, each appointed commissioner may cause to be issued at cost not more than a total of eight (8) elk, deer or antelope designated licenses per year.  All licenses issued under this subsection shall be designated to nonprofit charitable organizations.  As a condition of accepting the license, the organization shall agree to auction or otherwise bid the license to the highest bidder or to raffle the license to members of the public.



The Commission licenses were always going to wildlife groups, but they were also going to community events, boy scouts, etc. I've long thought that if you want a wildlife auction tag, you should be enjoined in the conservation of wildlife and wildlife habitat. Love the other orgs, and the other work that needs to be done, but there's so much wildlife conservation work that needs to happen, giving these to anyone event seems short-sighted.
 
In regards to Commission licenses: if those are not nonprofits, then the statute says they can't get them. Seems like someone should be talking to WGFD's legal staff.

Oyster Ridge is a 501 (C)(3): https://donorbox.org/oyster-ridge-music-festival-donations

IIRC the county predator boards were quasi-governmental organizations that recieved funding from state agencies as well as the AMDB and such. I don't see how they are eligible for Commissioner licenses?





The Commission licenses were always going to wildlife groups, but they were also going to community events, boy scouts, etc. I've long thought that if you want a wildlife auction tag, you should be enjoined in the conservation of wildlife and wildlife habitat. Love the other orgs, and the other work that needs to be done, but there's so much wildlife conservation work that needs to happen, giving these to anyone event seems short-sighted.
Is WOGA non profit?
 
Yes, but they are not a charitable non-profit per their tax filings:

I rest my case...seems odd to give a commission tag to a group that has sued the commission? But, hey, that's just me.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
113,671
Messages
2,029,163
Members
36,278
Latest member
votzemt
Back
Top