Land owner tags have underminded may uni
New Mexico
In the late 1990 and early 2000 cattle ranchers inherited tags trhough picketing our Game and fish .One racher when he found about the bull tag money shot and killed alot of elk. the game and fish upped the amount of tags issued in units like 9 and 15 and 34 to name a few .these units have took BIG hits. Its time to reckon wiht GF an Ranch onwers is mony more important than quatlit hunts. I say they agree No. the 1990S was a different Era. I want it back
I have to agree with you. The landowner ranch tags suck a big one! Money Money Money! Unit wide and kill em all!
Her merny berz dids yer drink tonights?
I agree. Nothing is what it used to be but 15 has taken a big hit over the years.
9 is dead! I put some major miles this year hiking around, well turkey hunting, and I saw few old tracks and did not even see any deer or elk. All those cow hunts year after year had the effect they were looking for I guess.
15 is a road filled whored out unit too. Way to go NM, great management.
Every RANCHER needs a new King Ranch pick up every year at Sportsmen's expense ! Thank GOD and Hallelujah for NMDGF's GREED and co-operation .
I talked to one L.o. in 21 to ask permission to cross 400 yards of his property and he said " I guess the answer has to be no , I have 99 tags this year " !!!!!!!!!!! I almost passed out . Figure that times a minimum of 4000 a tag boys!!! I'm pissed
Technically, the LO has to allow access to their property if they are issued unit wide LO tags. We all know how that works though. I say get rid of unit wide tags and outfitter allocations!
In 1997 Dem NM Seantor Tim Jennings who is a sheep rancher in Roswell area lobbied and passed what is now referred to as the Jennings law. This allowed ranchers who were experiencing land damage from wildlife to protect their investments by killing nuisance wildlife if they had petitioned game and fish first and if the problem was not solved. This created a bargaining chip for immoral ranchers to go after UW landowner tags that were created just before this legislation was passed. And guess who was a lobbied for those tags also....Tim Jennings. One of the first tests of this method was a rancher near Cimmaron who shot dozens of antelope and was awarded for his efforts with more LO tags to sell. The most outrageous test came from a guy named Baca who owned a sliver of property in unit 15. He had no cattle but planted alfalfa. Of course the elk came in and ate it. He resisted any solution but an outrageous numeber of UW LO tags for a few acres of private property that had no resident elk. When denied he started shooting them...in the hundreds as reported...until he got what he wanted. Then RMEF got permission from the USFS to put a game fence around his property and shut him down. Moral or the story, it's not G/F that is the problem...its corrupt politicians like Jennings that are looking out for their own and not the interests of wildlife.
My uncle had over 25 elk in his winter wheat field last night. It takes a lot of fuel, labor and money to plant it each year for his live stock. The stock can't get in the field right now but the elk have torn up every fence we have put up. With all the rain we have had the muddy field is getting torn up bad with the elk grazing all night. He would love for Game and Fish to high fence the elk out but can't seem to get any one to pay to fence 160 acres of winter wheat fields with an 8 foot fence. The LO tags really help. Unless you ranch or farm you will never understand how hard it is to watch the wildlife eat and destroy your property. We could do like the rancher did several years ago and shoot 5 or 6 elk a night until the problems was solved but would rather never have to do that. I think a lot of guys bitching about LO tags don't own a blade of grass that the elk are fighting their live stock over. They just want easier tag odds and easier hunting.
jdee,
I have nothing against LO tags at all. I am totally against unit wide LO tags. sell the tags for ranch only but why unit wide? It's all about the money. I've seen some get tags for archery elk, muzzleloader, rifle, and late season cows and don't have any elk on their property except for the occasional drifter. Almost all the elk on some properties aren't even there till late winter when they migrate in. So, why the unit wide tags? they should be getting ranch only tags for late season hunts when the elk are there.
I know there are a lot of ranches out there that have elk year round and lots of them. I still don't see the purpose of unit wide LO tags. If it's for private property then it should stay that way.
LO tags should be issued only for the property and not unit wide. There should be a system to assist ranchers with the damage done to their property but I can never comprehend giving LO tags to do that. It should never have become a means of reimbursement but it has. as for the fence, well it is my understanding that once the fence went up in 15 all those LO tags went bye bye and Mr Baca along with them. No more cash flow and lost his ranch. The LO tag system has also become a corrupt system that has been and will continue to be abused. And regardless of damage, no LO should be allowed to shoot wildlife and leave them to waste. In the end we all choose our professions. Ranchers are no different. As for tags, with the LO tags in the pool it doesn't significantly improve draw odds but it's fair. New Mexico is the only state that has a system like this, and there is good reason why.
LOL tags are all about the $. It's a mismanaged government entitled program. Got ranchers the have land in 2 different units one unit is uw and across the road the other unit is ro. It's about maximum $ not reducing the herd in the area. Ranching is a business and should be run accordingly. All businesses have insurance for such situations and don't get $ when life happens. Expecting or asking someone/gov to $ your projects is entitlement. I do think ranchers should be able to legally reduce the herds doing damage on their property as long as the game isn't wasted. Not hard to get hunters there especially youth to hunt them out of the area. Either you want the elk or you don't. But EPLUS has built it where the ranchers want the elk and $.
Great points in the last 3 posts
"I guess the answer has to be no , I have 99 tags this year " !!!!!!!!!!! I almost passed out . Figure that times a minimum of 4000 a tag boys!!! I'm pissed"
That guy is full of crap.
Hey, here's a grand idea. Put all of the tags back into the draw. When a hunter asks permission to hunt your ranch say yes. Boy, what a concept, allowing hunters to hunt your property to control the herd and keep them off. It's called a win/win compromise, The hunters receive many more tags through the draw, and the ranchers are helping to cull the herds that are decimating there land. Have a great day!
The whole LO allocation system definitely needs an overhaul but the G&F are reluctant to open the rule.
The SCR (small contributing ranch, or landowner) program with the UW designations are there for a reason. We have 55 acres of irrigated pasture land that we support up to and over 60 elk from around April 1 through August 1 every year and we haven't received a LO tag for many years. This is critical spring and summer habitat for elk and much of the river bottom is cover for the elk to calve. There is no season or good time to hunt the elk when they are there. We definitely don't want a high fence because it is critical habitat for not only the elk but deer both mulies and Coues, javelina and turkey. I don't mind sharing the resource but due to the G&F not able to provide game damage compensation, the LO system was set up to help with the losses.
This is unit 23 and doesn't have as much private land elk habitat as some of the other units so the share of landowner versus public is smaller and the G&F drawing for the SCR LO tags makes it a lot harder to ever get a LO tag.
I for one think there is good merit for having the UW but the whole system needs some changes. One change I think is that elk at least here in most of the Gila, spend more time on US Forest lands so the formula dividing up the tags between private and public need changes.
I think Jdee is right that if you don't own a spear of grass then maybe you need to dig a little deeper into reality of just what many landowners provide for our wildlife.
Until the late 1980's much of units 23, 15, 12 and 13 didn't have any or few elk. The landowners have become inundated with a problem they never had before. Sure there are abuses and problems with the system but we all need to work together to get the Dept. to take on some of the glaring problems and correct them.
been seeing these threads for years. nothing will get solved here. become a member of those sportsmen groups that are willing to take the situation to the NM legislature and get things changed or all this complaining is for not. just saying!! NM cattle growers will fight us as will the outfitters groups so go in with both barrels loaded and ready for war.
Once upon a time, the west was heavily populated with bison, elk, deer, and pronghorn. Then, progress came west in the form of the Conestoga wagon and rail and there was no room for wildlife when the lucrative cattle empires were built and barb wire strung from Mexico to Canada.
Now, through conservation efforts, some of this wildlife is making a come back only to burden those with land and housing developments in winter range.
Interesting cycle of events...
No matter what, the burden of cost from damage to property by wildlife will always be placed on the hunter whether from increased license fees to allocate a portion back to landowners for recovery or through LO vouchers.
The problem with NM is NM politicians. Best win is to put the LO permits into the public draw and offer an "OTC" option for private land only for all game species. If the land in question does indeed have the game problems it's supposed to, then it won't have issues attracting hunters to help control those numbers and NMDGF won't have the burden of allocating vouchers in limited numbers. Heavy hunting pressure will keep at bay large numbers of game for those who don't want it there and for the ones who want to provide some habitat can manage accordingly.
There are holes in this approach I'm sure, but as Stoney mentioned, the current system needs an overhaul.
The eastern portion of AZ looks a lot like the western portion of NM. They do fine without LO tags. NM should emulate AZ.
Here LOs control key committees in the state house and senate and will not let any bill that takes away the subsidy pass. They also are over-represented on the Game Commission.
"Heavy hunting pressure" during April through August when the cow elk are either getting ready to calve and or are raising their calves doesn't solve the problem and is not a good option. The elk are on mostly the USFS when they need to be hunted here in the Gila Region. The LO SCR UW tags are an effective way to equal out the imbalance.
Meat hunters extirpated the wildlife in the causing the Merriam's Elk to go extinct and also unregulated hunting. It wasn't so much a factor of the "cattle empires" and "fencing".
The Rocky Mtn. Elk were transplanted back into the Gila in the 1960's and it took them over twenty years to expand out from the two or three release sites in now unit 16A. The hunting populace should appreciate the efforts of the NMDGF to bring back the elk and manage them into the huge numbers and area these elk have repopulated. You opportunity to hunt elk has come from zero to the great Gila herd of elk today and the opportunities afforded. The landowners whom provide critical habitat through critical times of the year should be recognized and rewarded if they truly do contribute to the well being of the elk herds. Those landowners whom are on the bandwagon whom provide little to nothing should be cut from the program.
Just stating that western expansion did not do natural herds and species any favors, and then some poeple complain about the damage that the reintroduction of wildlife is doing [to their land], that's all. Never said the Iron Horse or fencing caused the demise of wildlife.
No doubt LO's play a large role in the wellfare of wildlife whether they want to or not. Utah has CWMU's that allow a draw for permits on private land. The LO can also allow over-the-counter hunters to hunt on their land, even if the property is located within an LE draw unit. Those same land owners work with DWR for herd management.
The "heavy hunting pressure" is a good option for the LO that loses big from the destruction that wildlife does on their land. No body ever said to hunt during the spring and summer. If the elk are indeed on USFS land, during hunting seasons, then why does a LO "need" the tags to begin with? Shouldn't those pesky elk be dealt with between Sept through March?
As snarky as this sounds, wildlife causing damage to private land is part of doing business. A perturbed LO shooting elk, for example, and leave them lay because he doesn't like them eating "his grass" is no different than the perturbed hunter shooting cattle (or sheep) in USFS because he doesn't like them eating wildlife's grass. Both critters are owned by someone. Yeah, the LO pays grazing fees, just like the hunter buys his stamps and pays for a license.
NMDGF has a decent program to recompense a LO for wildlife damage and it works great in the free market. However, a LO would need to demonstrate the physical proof that compensation is warrented, and not just because they have a wellknown surname.
What people don't like is LO's getting more tags and hunters less opportunities for public land when all are aware that only the guy with the fattest wallet gets to hunt on the pristine acreage that benefits wildlife during critical times. The Quinlan Ranch comes to mind...
Much of what you say is probably true but the NMDGF due to the way the laws are written or interpreted can offer LO tags but not game damage compensation. It is a fairly unique system and has a great deal of merit and if revamped and made more fair to the public hunters as well as the affected landowners can be a fair and equitable system.
You have to remember that most of the landowners and ranchers didn't have elk from the earliest days of their existence and when the elk were reintroduced and expanded to almost 90,000 statewide it brought up a lot of conflict. It wasn't a part of doing business then but it is now. I think the game managers of NM have done a good job of trying to have a fair balance between the affected landowners and the relatively new task of managing the expanding elk herds.
I think the general hunting public has benefited hugely from the reintroduction and expansion of the herds. Sure there are inequities and fat cats and etc. but overall the John Doe elk hunter has it pretty darn good I would say.
For over four months of every year I provide much of the needed critical habitat for a good number of the public's' elk and the land is not posted so it can be hunted by the general public, but they are mostly not there during any hunting season. Pre late 1980's we never ever saw an elk here. Nothing I know of equalizes the benefit of a UW LO SCR tags in this case and much of the SCR properties. NM has a good system but can be made better. I or the landowners I lease from haven't received any LO permits for many years so we darn sure aren't getting anything from the system other than a black eye from many in the hunting community. We do get the satisfaction of providing needed habitat for the wildlife though, and these properties have helped produce (private land water, feed and cover) some of the biggest bulls taken in unit 23 the last many years. I have watched them get most of their antler growth on these private lands. Some of those lucky hunters wouldn't have the quality bulls if it wasn't for the critical habitat provided by these private lands.
I agree.
So, is the land providing the critical habitat a second benefit for wildlife because it is a working cattle ranch or done soley for the betterment of wildlife?
Just wondering.
Stoney, this topic comes up every couple of years. Just look at HDE's "argument" as reason why discussing with these chuckleheads is akin to banging your head against a wall. They will throw every red herring and circular logic to support their claim that UW elk tags are evil.
^^^you're a funny guy. How do you really feel?
Why dont we just skip to the same spot where all these threads usually end. If you want LO tags to go away get rid of the jennings law. If you like LO tags then clean up the abuse where the dept caters to landowners who bitch for more and more tags.
Most end up agreeing that the outfitter setaside has no purpose and must be done with.
Easy.
What does the outfitter set aside have to do with the workings of the LO system? The opposition wants a flat 90/10 split on the public draw which leaves the NMDGF scrambling for funds to keep afloat. Here on the Gila there are over 80 outfitters all vying for a few tags to get opportunity for their mostly non resident hunters to hunt a quality area. The 10% set aside is so competitive that very few of us get enough tags to worry about. It may be different in the rest of the state. Its a numbers game and we have to apply more and more hunters to draw a very few tags and many people think we are getting such a good deal. Wrong.
The outfitting industry brings a lot and much needed revenues into the state and in particular many rural counties like Catron County and the legislators look at this very strongly in their decisions.
There is much more to the set aside than most people realize, as it doesn't make any guarantees and isn't a handout as many hunters think, plus in totality it is a huge economic factor to our rural economies.
"What does the outfitter set aside have to do with the workings of the LO system?"
Hunting opportunity is the answer. In the end, that's really what these threads are all about, and having the set aside unquestionably affects the opportunity for non residents who want nothing to do with an outfitter.
For good or ill, I'm just condensing where the discussion usually ends up.
It may unit specific but out of 10 hunters I booked this year 6 were drawn in the outfitter pool and four were booked after they drew in the non guided pool. So the question is still questionable. Granted the pie is only divided so much, but the demand is greater every year for the Gila tags and in the end there is never going to be enough to go around for everyone. The only way for non resident hunters to keep what they have got now is to work hard to keep as much of the pie as possible both guided and non guided. There is extreme pressure by resident hunters to go to a 90/10 split. The motivation behind this is that many of them want the very best units including most of the Gila units. Sure most everyone wants to hunt the primo areas so there is always going to be contention and a battle for the few tags available.
"Why dont we just skip to the same spot where all these threads usually end. If you want LO tags to go away get rid of the jennings law. If you like LO tags then clean up the abuse where the dept caters to landowners who bitch for more and more tags.
Most end up agreeing that the outfitter setaside has no purpose and must be done with.
Easy."
Uhh...that's what most everyone is saying, more or less, before you jumped in. Whatever it was that was posted on the 1st is kinda off topic and irrelevant.
Stoney,
You and I share many opinions. This comment, "The opposition wants a flat 90/10 split on the public draw which leaves the NMDGF scrambling for funds to keep afloat." is simply not accurate. As you know, the NMDG&F does not receive money from the general fund. The department is completely self-sufficient and funded entirely by hunters and anglers. The department contributes huge money to the general fund each year because the State Legislature does not allocate to them the full amount of the money they actually raise. NMDG&F historically operates with a financial surplus. Unfortunately our State Legislature allocates that surplus to be used elsewhere.
Over 80 outfitters in the Gila alone?! Holy cow! I'm no economics major, but there is a good reason why there aren't 80 wal marts in Las cruces! Why should anyone resident or non resident, have to give up our opportunity so that more than 80 outfitters can have their businesses supported by us. It's not our fault these guys are getting into a saturated market. Maybe Wal Mart should open up 76 more stores and ask the state to make people buy goods and services from them....
I have to agree with Stoney on this one. Work on cleaning up the misuse but leave the draw alone. Residents get 84% of the tags. Arguing for the extra 6%, or 6 tags out of 100, would not make a significant difference on drawing. Easy example with 100 tags and 200 applicants. With 84% of the tags you have a 42% chance of drawing, with 90% of the tags you have a 45% chance of drawing. They even gave us more opportunity to hunt by taking all the antler less and WMA tags making them resident only.
I also don't see where if they took the LO tags away they would put them in the draw. Maybe they will just let the elk herd go down to where they don't have elk running all over private land getting killed. Our hunting tags will go down because we don't have the numbers of elk that we have now. They also took all the LO tags away so now if you don't get drawn you don't even have the opportunity to buy a tag.
All the arguments I see are about $$$$. So we get rid of the LO tags, don't get an increase in tags. That means hunters licenses will go up. Are you willing to pay $500+ for a resident public draw elk tag? How much for a NR elk tag, $2500+ ? How much for the application fee? Talk about making NM a "Kings Game" state where only the rich can hunt.
I doubt the extra money from the sale of a LO tag gets taxed accordingly. The NRs are still going to pay the 790.00 or whatever for a good tag even if its in the public pool. I know in unit 15 there are more than 6% LO tags, I would assume also in places like 34 too. What you really want to do anyway is look at the amount of LO tags given in ratio of their ranch size compared to the unit size. I truly believe there is some imbalance and abuse.
No easy answer here, landowners have a lot of influence in all states, not just NM. As long as there's a demand and people continue to pay these crazy fees to landowners its not going to change. Money talks unfortunately. The only thing I can think of is get everyone to boycott the landowner tags for a couple of years and don't buy them, but good luck with that. Not sure what the outcome would be regardless?
The big problem is that the NM Game Dept. and Commission don't want to open the rule to make some needed changes to make the system fairer to both landowners and the public draw hunter. It opens up a can of worms because of a lot of pressure to do away with the UW and even the whole program. Boycotting the LO tags won't work, only a unified sportsman effort to go to the Dept. and Commission and make some needed changes. Many landowners are just individuals with small pieces of property and not big ranchers. The big ranchers are mostly RO tags. I think the Dept. needs to critically assess the elk usage on each piece of property and develop a formula that rewards landowners whom truly provide and support elk well being. Riparian and irrigated lands and water sources should be rewarded more that just dry land where an occasional elk comes across their property. As I said in an earlier post I think the Dept. needs to reassess the division of private land versus public land and how much time the elk spend on each. I think the public lands, especially the Forest Service lands hold elk for a much longer period of time than these smaller private parcels therefore the tags should be weighted more into the public draw.
The ranching community doesn't want to rock the boat either so it is a double edged sword working against any meaningful reforms being made. It will take a big effort by NM's sportsmen to come together with the landowners, outfitters and ranchers to come up with a fair system for all.
"Are you willing to pay $500+ for a resident public draw elk tag? How much for a NR elk tag, $2500+ ?"
Yes, I currently am because myself and my kids cannot draw a tag to save our lives. $500 for a LO cow and $2,000 for the LO bull.
It already is a King's Game in some instances.
I was talking to a friend who lives in a subdivision in unit 15, each lot averages 10 to 20 acres, he said the whole freaking subdivision has been filing the paperwork for elk tags and he is applying for two because he has two lots, their pitch is that the elk come in during the winter months and eat their grass and damage their fences.
I don't think they should be getting them but it seems that they are .
Repeal the " JENNINGS LAW " STOP incentivizing Land Owners to profit from questionable practices incentivized by corrupt Santa Fe politicians & NMDGF , USE the HABITAT STAMP FEES for what they were intended to accomplish . NM is a fence out State ! if you can't afford to operate a live stock endeavor with help from NMDGF and Sportsmen you may be in the wrong business ! I fully appreciate some people that feel they are providing critical habitat with their land holdings during stressful periods for wildlife but I've witnessed people that scam the system for TAGS that they NEVER should receive for a small insignificant plot of SHIT LAND that wouldn't support ONE ELK for more than a week while said individuals do not even graze live stock AT ALL ! Their is NO REASON ANY LAND OWNER TAGS should be issued UNIT WIDE by NMDGF PERIOD !!!!! You may agree or disagree with this opinion and if you disagree you are NO SPORTSMAN ! and most likely a Land Owner . This is JMHO FWIW ! PS , I really don't care what you think about my opinion !
Wapiti16B,
Gosh, you must have gotten out of bed on the wrong side the day you wrote this!
I have been railing on the Game Dept. for years to make some really needed changes to the E-Plus system to make it fair and equitable. I agree with you that there are many, many landowners whom should not be getting LO tags. The ECR or elk contribution rating is part of the formula that needs some re-doing and the split between private land and public land tags is in dire need of change as well as acreage requirements . The way the system works now for the UW unit wide permits many landowners whom are providing critical habit and many whose lands provides high value crops that are being hammered by the State's elk, would get no value out of RO ranch only tags as they would be restricted to regular season only tags which do not work as the elk are not there at those times. The Habitat Stamp Program used to pay for the total cost of high fencing but now is only paying for fence materials so many landowners can't afford to pay the labor costs to build the fences, so just let the game damage happen, which in many instances really hurts their bottom lines. We only have to look back 20-30 years to see that these landowners never had any elk and so in those years the Game Dept. with a lot of hard work and input from affected parties came up with the E-Plus system. To make needed changes, it means opening up the rule, which the Dept. is reluctant to do because of mainly one so called sportsman group that wants to totally dismantle the system.
NM is a fence out state but with some caveats. If you own horses you have to keep them fenced in. Cattle on the other hand have to be fenced out by your neighbor. Federal laws contradict this as US Forest Service land is off limits so you have to fence your cattle in so they don't get on FS property. The Jennings law gives the Game Dept. three attempts to correct the trespass of the State's wildlife and if they don't correct the trespass the land owner can take action into his own hands. It has been abused severely on two or three occasions but is not the bad guy it is often made out to be.
With that said many landowners have been and are being hammered by the State's wildlife, mostly elk and since the State basically won't pay for wildlife depredation they came up with the LO permit system, which is a form of compensation for this wildlife depredation
I would beg to differ with you that because I am a landowner and a leaser of farmland that is critical wildlife habitat, that I am not a Sportsman. Quite to the contrary!
Sportsmen need to come together to solve the problems with the system and not totally try to disrupt a system that could be a good partnership between landowner and sportsmen. Calling for the end of the LO E-Plus system or even the UW designation will keep the program in a stalemate. The rule needs to be reopened and changes made and everyone needs to stop and give the whole program some deep thought, and actually read the laws that are in place now.
"The department contributes huge money to the general fund each year because the State Legislature does not allocate to them the full amount of the money they actually raise. "
Then you have to add all the Gross Receipts Tax, collected by the State, on every Outfitter and Land Owner, in respect of their sales. And then the State collects income tax, from the business man.
Until Sportsmen begin to realize that it is the 'State' bureaucracy themselves that refuses to change/eliminate their easy 'triple dip' (one transaction = permit money and two Taxes) of money--nothing will change! Money talks.
land owners pay gross receipts tax ??? Can you explain this to me?
If the landowner has a corporation set up with income from their land they pay GRT, otherwise it's property taxes the same as you and me.
I know a couple landowners that don't show the proceeds from tags as report able income. I assumed that was common practice. I hunted unit 34 last week archery bull 6x and was talking with a ranch owner and he was thinking he would make more money if he went to unit wide tags instead of ranch only anyway I got the impression that he didn't report his "hunt money". Do they have to actually sell their tags?
They're a voucher that get redeemed for a tag. The landowner can sell them, use them, or toss them.
Technically, they should report the money earned from selling vouchers as the ranch listed (which is the reason they have the voucher in the first place).
Suppose I buy a voucher for a bull for $2500 then turn around and donate it at a fundraiser banquet to use as a charitable donation deduction on my taxes. Now there is a record of it on the tax books the irs can cross check to see if that landowner reported that income. Probably wouldn't happen but very well could.
Since I'd venture to guess the vast majority of vouchers are sold for cash, I would suspect that the reported income my differ from that paid...just a hunch, nothing concrete.
Does everyone remember this? http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/new-mexico-wants-back-taxes-on-sales-of-elk-hunting/article_e1018a97-7fa3-5eb0-b20b-2224e80d08f2.html
The article claims that those selling the authorizations didn't know they had to pay taxes? That seems kind of strange....
Ignorance to the law doesn't hold much weight in court.
that is not strange, its total BS . Landowners / ranchers know the tax laws. imho
What part of "income tax" don't they understand?
The competition gets pretty tough....Is all the compalaining from guys who just get po'd because they didn't draw or from guys who have their livestock/horse feed being hit hard by elk ? I bet if any one of you had one dog that was digging up your yard you'd raise 9 kinds of hell.
Paying income tax is just a part of life. You sell your LO tags for a price you are happy with and pay the tax on it. No different than the guy selling cars or any other kind of taxable sale.
I can't imagine any LO, or anyone, reporting the profits of an undocumented cash transaction.
If I had a problem then I'd sell the tag to cover fences and other loses, but I'd also open my gate and allow those who have drawn tags take care of my problem instead of doing everything I can to keep hunters out then bitching about my elk and deer problem.
So do you just sit there and watch these elk chew up your feed? Or do you push them off your property? One gun shot and they'll probably scatter, or one trip on the quad across the field. Birds are a problem in the midwest, they don't make hunters pay a premium to shoot'm. They let them do it for free or set up cannons that scare them away, can't complain about a wild animal invading your space when you do nothing to deter them... but instead inflate the damage they've caused to capitalize on it either w/ tags, subsidies, or write offs.
It's obvious ohiohunter that you know nothing about elk and ranching !! I probably do more to help elk in a week than you have done in your entire life. LO has a unit wide tag he can't keep a legal hunter off the land , It's open to the public by law. Another area of hunting you know nothing about....yap, yap, yap. lol oh man lol One trip across a pasture on a ATV and they sure will scatter and they will be back tomorrow night too. Anyone can hunt my land for free long as they have a tag.....It's the law. So is reporting your yearly income and I have every record of every cent I ever made off of a LO tag and paid on income tax.....kind of dumb not to . Bulls are starting to drop their antlers , think I'll shed hunt tomorrow.
jdee----Looks like the SW part of the state but I could be wrong. Tell me the unit number and if I draw I will be happy to come take one of the big cows off for you come September. I don't need a bull as I love to eat elk.
Jack, It sounds like you are doing it right. There are plenty of UW tag recipients who chase public hunters off their land. There are also plenty who don't remember selling any authorizations when April 15th rolls around.
Whether we're talking about landowners, outfitters or hunters there are always a few rotten apples that can spoil the bushel.
Still waiting on a private message or post the unit up here. I will be happy to come take out one of those cow elk. I am sure many hunters would be happy with a cow elk. So you must not have that big of a problem, since as you said it is a UW tag and any hunter who draws that unit can hunt your land. Like every other landowner who complains about the elk and deer on their land and want more landowner tags to sell. it is all about the $$$$$ and not the elk and deer "problem".
March 22nd is getting here fast and I bet I don't have an answer before then, if ever. If it is that big of a problem jdee will post up the unit and us "blue collar hunters" can go take care of his problem for him.
tell us how ya really feel!!!!!!!!
78cj5 made a great post. Maybe there are other e plus recipients as well on here that might take advantage of his post and fix their horrible elk problem.
Get yourself an Elk tag valid from now through May, and you can knock yourself out on our property. The elk are there now, and will be up the hill by Memorial Day. See the problem?
No I don't see the problem. I have no problem hunting public lands "up the hill" to reduce the herd for you if the elk aren't on your land. I prefer hunting public lands but will gladly hunt private lands to help out landowners. Tell me a unit number and point me in a direction " up the hill" and I will gladly go take out a cow if I get drawn.
Here is the problem I have. I got drawn one year for a certain unit. I sent self addressed, stamped envelopes to all UW landowners in the unit. I explained I was not interested in a bull but if they were having elk problems I would gladly hunt their UW ranch. I also stated if the elk weren't on their land to point me in a direction "up the hill" to help reduce the herd, even if by one. How many responses did I get? Not one. Not even five minutes to write FU on a paper, seal the envelope and drop it in the mail.
Not the first time I heard this. One year at a G&F meeting in ALbq. during the late 90's one Unit 6 landowner was complaining about the elk hurting their land. They wanted more tags to sell. I asked point blank if I drew a public land tag could I get access to their RO ranch to help decrease the elk herd? No that wouldn't work to let public hunters on their ranch the only thing that would work is more tags.
I am sure there are plenty of good responsible hunters who would gladly help take care of the problem if given the opportunity. The type of hunters who leave gates as they find them, take their trash with them, gladly lend a hand if the landowner needed any help, etc. The type of hunter who actually has respect for the traditions that hunting came from.
I guess I'll have to break it down for you Barney-style, then. You come on here challenging a LO to allow you on his property to "fix" his elk problem. An LO responds to you welcoming you to fix his springtime elk feeding problem. There are no hunts going on while elk are there. THAT is the problem, and the reason UW tags exist. Property isn't enrolled in E-plus (never has been), but again if you can find a legal way to do so, come bag one cow or bull, since they're all antlerless.
You follow up, moreover, with the asinine assertion that UW ranchers somehow owe you a tip on where you can find the elk "uphill"? Typical.
What rancher suffering from damages wouldn't give a hunter a tip on where to kill elk? Or even access to the elk on his land or neighboring BLM/forest? I'll tell you BARNEY STYLE, a rancher who's more worried about the value of his tags than he is worried about the damages incurred. Its a F*&^*& system and everyone knows it.
HOW many ranchers have locked gates keeping us off of public land YET they still apply for and receive tags?
I'll give it to you Barney Style IntruderBN. You just proved my point a lot of hunters have with the LO's. Your attitude shows a general reception most hunters get from LO's. Your attitude shows it is us VS. them instead of working together to fix a "problem". I can do my own scouting as I have been in elk the last 3 years in a unit that doesn't have a big elk herd.
I didn't challenge you or jdee to allow me on your land. If you get UW tags I don't need to challenge you as under state law I have a right to access your land during my hunt. I challenged you to give me a unit number and rough idea of where you are having the problem. Which I know will never happen. Typical whining by LO who wants to say they have a "problem" but do nothing to help "fix" the problem. Stoney might as he has said numerous time there are no elk on his land. He also does't appear to be an AH.
Maybe we just need to bring in MORE MEXICAN GREY WOLVES to take care of the elk problem.
The LO should be the ones working on getting tags from now until may from game n fish to fix their horrible elk problem. I bet LO if given a option of when they could use thier tags would opt to keep fall season tags.
I finally had a LO give me a unit number and general idea so I will see if I can pull a tag for that unit. I am also switching my third choice for antler less ML elk to that unit if they have it. So my second and third choice will be in IntruderBN's backyard. I am serious on helping landowners by taking out as many cows as I can. I will even put my daughters in for antler less ML tags in that unit. Got to pull up the regs first.
I'm glad to hear he ponied up, and kudos to you IntBN for doing so. Not sure if they were available in his unit but the late season cow hunts are on. I've seen quite a few harvest pics on FB.
Once a group gets on entitlements, they make it a lifestyle. They cannot imagine life without it. The reason is they are doing better than before there was a problem. Some years the moonsoon and early spring rains are amazing. We went through a drought back in early 2000s. Its funny how extra feed does not reflect in tag handouts. There should be a base amount of cow tags issued to LO's to control herds. If the rain goes up, the tags go down and vice versa.
"I'll give it to you Barney Style IntruderBN. You just proved my point a lot of hunters have with the LO's. Your attitude shows a general reception most hunters get from LO's. Your attitude shows it is us VS. them instead of working together to fix a "problem". I can do my own scouting as I have been in elk the last 3 years in a unit that doesn't have a big elk herd. I didn't challenge you or jdee to allow me on your land. If you get UW tags I don't need to challenge you as under state law I have a right to access your land during my hunt. I challenged you to give me a unit number and rough idea of where you are having the problem. Which I know will never happen. Typical whining by LO who wants to say they have a "problem" but do nothing to help "fix" the problem. Stoney might as he has said numerous time there are no elk on his land. He also does't appear to be an AH.
Maybe we just need to bring in MORE MEXICAN GREY WOLVES to take care of the elk problem."
It pays to read PMs before ranting, doesn't it?
"The LO should be the ones working on getting tags from now until may from game n fish to fix their horrible elk problem. I bet LO if given a option of when they could use thier tags would opt to keep fall season tags."
Nope, they don't have to. Legally they can just shoot them down, Al Capone- style, during the spring as long as they're not in E-PLUS. Jennings Law. Not sure they'd use them during the fall season if the elk aren't there. Do you guys ever wonder why there are so many unsold (thus, unused) LO permits outside the COER? I'll tell you this - most BIG outfits outside the COER, especially Unit 12, sign up for more tags than they could ever realistically use. It's a combination of reasons here. One, ranches go on the market and the number of Elk tags are a big part of the marketing. Two, its the lessee outfitter who signs up for more than he'll ever use for the same marketing.
"What rancher suffering from damages wouldn't give a hunter a tip on where to kill elk? Or even access to the elk on his land or neighboring BLM/forest? I'll tell you BARNEY STYLE, a rancher who's more worried about the value of his tags than he is worried about the damages incurred. Its a F*&^*& system and everyone knows it. HOW many ranchers have locked gates keeping us off of public land YET they still apply for and receive tags?" Barney-Style, the guy who cares MOST about the value of his tags is the guy who is depredated the MOST. Without that value, the depredation matters. That is the whole point of E-PLUS. Unlike Ohio, or wherever you're from, LOs can depredate on their own and, of course, we don't want them to do that.
They can legally just shoot them down Capone style today because no one (group) has made it an issue yet...
Many groups have worked very hard to repeal or reform Jennings Law without success. It's a bad law that was poorly written. There is some justification for allowing a LO to manage predator species on their private ground. Jennings Law as it is written though, needs to be done away with. It doesn't exist because we haven't tried to get rid of it. It exists because our efforts so far have failed.
Here's a "history lesson" on this topic.
Question: so what happens when 40 cows on public ground eat what 200 pronghorn will...?
The reason this hasn't been repealed yet is because it isn't high enough on "those" interest group's radar. Problem is when it is, a lot of other hunting things will be tied to it. Coyote contests are illegal now...
Solution: get rid of crony politicians.
Roast away...
Solution: get rid of crony politicians.
On all levels.
Can't argue that crony and corrupt politicans are to blame for MANY of our State's problems...Jennings Law included. Sadly, the cronyism that IS our State Game Commission [that's a broad brush as we do have and have had a few good commissioners] is a major problem for NM Sportsmen.
Yes it is.
Question: when that LO killed all those pronghorn, did Game and Fish take that into account for heard management and allocate future hunts/tags accordingly because of it?
Like it or not, the Jennings Law steals a resource from the public. Some might even argue it's borderline poaching...
When the meat is left to waste its 100% poaching in my book.
I don't know much but I don't think herd management is much of a fix to the depredation issue, in many instances I would imagine that cutting a herd in half just means that half the herd will show up to eat the private winter fields in the off season, the issue will still persist because that's where the good feed is. As a hunter I want the herds as big as possible and would prefer a solution that didn't ravage the herd size, we have seen first hand in unit 6C what happens when you cut the herd size, the unit becomes a unit that you can't give the tag away and after the herd was cut the LO's in that unit wanted UW tags in other units (6A).
Agreed, in reference to the disgruntled LO and the antelope as stated in the article there was no compromise from the LO, but he was/is protected by the law. I wished a savvy LEO would've said, "you cannot discharge a firearm from a vehicle, let alone a moving vehicle" and arrested the guy and charged for every round shot.
The only crux to discharging a firearm from a vehicle is he was on private land...
So, why did law enforcement have to dispatch wounded animals? Does the Jennings Law not read a land owner has the right to KILL animals that pose a threat to distruction of property or commerce?
True, then in line w/ your statement of not killing the animals... animal cruelty
