Eplus Unrestricted Access
New Mexico
I've been trying to find legitimate definition for what gnf defines as unrestricted access. I always thought it meant unlocked gates for existing roads through the property?? Reason is last yr my 13 yr old son had the 17 archery hunt. There was a UW ranch that had thier gate locked and chained up. It has thier sign clearly posted on so I took a pic and emailed it to gnf with the ranch eplus assigned #. They responded quick and looked into it. Then responded a 2ND time in a timely manner and summed it up as long as the landowner is equally allowing unrestricted access then thier allowed to keep the gate locked. Implying everyone on foot could pass through but they weren't allowing vehicle access which didnt help us cause were trying to access forest beyond thier peoperty not hunt the small UW ranch. Was super frustrating to and bummer experience for my son for sure. This is all fact statements and I have emails pics etc. Can you guys help clear Unrestricted access definition lol?
Sounds restricted to me, also sounds like a BS loophole the GNF should not uphold. This should not be open to discretion, the term unrestricted is pretty black and white.
That's bs for sure . There's a ranch in the same general area and the rancher has to give access to it on established roads. Were the people who bought the tags driving in there?
Split, So this small ranch has 2 small sections both surrounded by FS. One that thier residence is on and the other was locked. As for thier residence I only saw 2 vehicles driving into and couldn't verify if they were hunting since we saw them from miles away atop a ridge. The one that's locked always has elk back there especially on dry yrs like last yr. We managed to hike around and my son shot and missed at 40yds. The hike wore him and would of been awesome to not have to hike and have him in elk every day.
An Eplus ranch does not have to allow vehicle access. Neither onto nor thru, their enrolled property, but all "access" has to be the same for people who bought LO vouchers.
WapitiBob summed it up. I never thought "access" had to include vehicular access.
Also Barrera, I suspect one of the reasons "there are always elk back there" is because nobody can drive there!
Carl's definitely right about the locked gate. That's why there's elk there . As long as the guys who bought the UW tags aren't driving around back there then that's the way the cow eats the cabbage. Access has to be the same across the board.
Bob above is right and they do have to allow the same access as those who bought their LO [UW] permits.
A similar situation up here in 2A. A LO bought some land with a road that goes through it onto BLM. When he locked the gate, a friend of mine challenged it with the BLM and their response was that the LO is not keeping you from accessing the BLM behind his property by you walking across other BLM from the south (in this case).
Ok that clears it up. So this particular ranch in 17 is 2 small sections. One had a maroon ford going in early on 2 occasions but we never saw if they were hunting for sure. The other section had a locked gate. So the ranch can have split access rules on the same eplus contract?Thanks guys for the insight, but I'm not a fan of eplus at all.
Not really split access. They can have access however they want ,AS LONG AS ITS THE SAME ACROSS THE BOARD.
Splitlimb is your "SANE" a typo, intentional or a Freudian stab? . I haven't seen anything "Sane" about the landowner tag system in NM. :)
We had a similar issue many years ago. Locked gate but landowner was allowing the guys who bought his tags to drive ATVs down his road. I called G&F and they came out and said it shouldn't be locked but the lock didn't go away. After not being in elk for a couple days, I got riled up and told my friends I was going to go kill a bull on his property. We parked our ATVs right in front of his locked gate and hiked down to a water hole I had found from an aerial photo. Sure enough I shot a small bull. When I was hiking out, the guys with the UW tags were driving out and they agreed to leave the gate unlocked for us so we could drive the ATVs in and didn't have to pack him out. It still is one of my best hunting memories.
Only the enrolled property needs access and many LO's only enroll a portion of their property. You need the map of the e-plus enrolled land and that process can be a pain in itself. The "maps" I have for a different unit are way less than ideal.
And you can only obtain those maps through a FOIA request correct? It drives me nuts how it takes either a law degree or detective skills to figure out the E-plus UW ranches.
That's how I had to do it.
I recently listened to a G&F meeting and they were talking about e-plus, one thing they said was that they are trying to get all the UW ranches GPS mapped and on their website sometime in 2019, a prerequisite to being included in the e-plus system.
I heard the same thing 3 + years ago. "Maps" are already a requirement but nobody with authority has the desire to enforce it.
Don't know if this link will work but this is the NMC of Outfitters and Guides meeting with the G&F.
Yep we have heard it over and over but who knows? I would like to see the G&F try and clean the e-plus system up and it will take the NMCOG and the G&F to do it. There is a lot about the E-Plus that I do not like but if it isn't going anywhere I would like it somewhat cleaned up and the participating ranch coordinates to be accessible to the public.
If the Unit-Wide option is selected, elk licenses obtained with landowner authorizations will be valid within the entire GMU for use on all private unitwide ranches and any legally-accessible public lands where hunting is allowed. By signing this Agreement permission is granted to any legally licensed elk hunters, their companions and/or guides and outfitters to access the entire ranch, without charge or other consideration, and hunt elk during their assigned season dates and to scout the two days immediately preceding the start of their hunt. Scouting may only occur during legal shooting hours. If vehicular access is restricted then it must be equally restricted to all elk hunters throughout all public elk hunt periods.
Hey Bob, what was your experience with the maps? I did the same thing several years ago and was somewhat disappointed. Dark copies of the gazetteer with vague boundaries drawn, NF maps, BLM, maps that looked like they were drawn on a napkin, even local municipal zoning maps which I could not interpret. G&F even gave me a list of ranches within the unit and highlighted ones they didn't even have a map for!
Both ends of the spectrum; fs maps with the private filled in, to plain white paper with the property outline and a cpl section numbers.
I order them every year and usually can locate most of the ranches but takes a lot of time and have to call the landowners sometimes. I end up building my own unit map with the as many possible UW and ro ranches outlined. Seen some ranchers do some interesting stuff for sure. Last yr on forest land they transplanted a fr sign from another fr that had access restrictions on a legally accessible rd. Crazy how many hunters were turning around at the gate and didn't realize what the rancher had done. They even left us a nice note one night trying intimidate us lol. Reported it and nothing changed. Prob best for everyone to bombard gnf with map request then they will make a change in thier eplus mapping system.
So just call NMG&F and ask for the UW map for the unit ? I'm happy to help bombard. Don't even mind asking for multiple units as moving this into the 21st century might also help other things as well.
Easiest way to request maps is to email them at:
[email protected] You will need to let them know which maps you want. I usually ask for all EPLUS ranch only and unit wide ranches for both standard eplus scr eplus ranches. They will email you a invoice that you can send payment for the maps. They cost $0.75 each. Worth it if you have a hunt or want to learn a new unit the yrs you don't draw.
Barrera, Thanks. Just sent my request. I actually did the research for my unit many years ago but it was before you could get the actual maps (lame as they are). It also helps that now the county in my unit has the land ownership online. That should help with interpreting the poor maps that NMG&F will provide.
We all need to work together and share these maps for the next Guy. My request was sent in a couple weeks ago and cost me upwards of $100 at the 75 cents per page fee.
Ridiculous they can and do scan the maps as one off products and don’t just save the images for the next request they KNOW is coming. I don’t know if it’s just piss poor concern for customer service or that they are trying to serve the best interest just of the outfitters and landowners who want all the tags and money and no competition.
KHunter,
What units did you get? I would be willing to share some of the costs with you if you have my unit, especially since I'm guessing you could send me the files today. :) Email me at my spam address [email protected]. I'll go looking for it.
Actually, anyone who has the files, let me know and I would much rather cut both our costs down than send more $ to NMG&F.
I'll gladly send a few $$ for a few maps. Darrell, I just sent you some kitten videos :D
OH, That's exactly why I only post my original email address. Its now so plastered with SPAM that I only skim check it occasionally online. However, it allows me to fill in "email address" on forms without giving my real one. Send all the kitty vids you want. They will be ignored just like 99% of everything else that goes to my yahoo account. :)
Hey KHunter, The good AA over there probably does have the scans, and when she sends them to the printer it's like printing dollar bills.
I requested electronic copies rather than hardcopy prints. Have not received yet...
Question for Barrera. Why do you order the RO in addition to UW? I ordered UW only since that is the only property I can legally access. Just curious if I am missing something.
Darrell, I PM’d you here on bowsite in response to your question...
Bill, they say they do not have them stored electronically and that they will be pulling from paper files to get me my electronic copies. I have total faith their process is so horribly messed up they cannot or will not get around to scanning the darn things and creating an electronic library for future use. Certainly serves the outfiters and landowners a LOT more than the average hunter....Hmmm....kinda like the whole purpose of EPLus tag giveaway program. Weird.
Paid $65 to get the Unit Wide maps. 85 sheets if paper. Kinda absurd given they could scan this stuff once and post online.
I have Darrel,s real email for a dollar you can have it. Just kidding Darrel
KHunter. Couple units we hunt I like to have the copies with me of the RO units cause we have on multiple occasions have proof to show the RO hunters they're not suppose to be hunting off the ranch and have to show them the ranch boundary. Also you can map out some more productive ranches to hunt around or near. When you see a ro that gets a lot of tags it can be good as you will have elk that cross into public daily.
thanks Barrera. makes sense.
Currently, the E-PLUS rule is open for change and comment right now. I would like to see UW ranches with maps available through NMDGF. Also, would like to see comments for elk, deer, e-PLUS rules submitted to NMDGF right now. Of course, most times will see complaining after rules are adopted with game commission...................
Yo, having a hard time responding to individual messages. Let's see what what y'all think.....
If you read what I posted you'll see my take on yours. Submitting opinions via email to the department is a complete waste of time . More times than not ,speaking at meetings is a waste of time.
well, the only way to get our point across is to submit our views via email and written comment. Hopefully, more and more or us will submit comments.......
Will email them for sure although it falls on deaf ears 99% of the time like split mentioned.
You all are paying for maps from G&F? Onxmaps and the G&F list give you a better map for the money and you can have the whole state on you smart phone. If some ranches aren't listed on Onxmaps it is time to go to the county clerk or tax and rev. to find landowner information.
red you really do not understand the issue...Onx does not show WHICH private parcels are unit wide, or Ranch only, or neither. in my unit it does not even have landowner names. County clerk (assessor actually) does NOT match up to the Eplus ranch list. I tried.
only way to be sure you are legally hunting on private is to see the map of the enrolled acreage, period. and that comes for a fee to g&f.
In my unit it shows all most all the private landowners. There are a few I have to find through other means. Then on the landowner list from G&F you see which ranches are UW or RO. I am sure you know this: The ranch has to be inside the COER to be able to have UW designation, if outside the COER they are eligible for RO. Besides RO is only the actual deeded acreage and not open to "draw" hunters like UW ranches are. Do we even have to have a discussion on SCR's? Besides when you are requesting the maps from G&F do you requisition the directions to the land the LO is required to provide under the agreement? I do understand the issue. There is more than one way to make sure you are legal.
Hey Sparky, everything you've said is correct, except...the ranch map found in ONX/County Assessor office does not usually match the total or specific acreage enrolled in E-Plus. "Deed
Enrolled." The ranchers sometimes exclude specific sections (like those with water) from enrolment, so that unit-wide hunters cannot access those prime locations. Thus the need to get the maps from NMGF. The devil is in the details. BillL is absolutely right. I too use OnX and the LO list ,but more than half the landowners enrolled do not have their names published on OnX ,and the maps from g&f are not the best making it super tough to find the property. I actually went door to door in the unit to find a specific ranch two years ago.
So it seems like those are some things that need to be addressed to make it easier on hunters since they finally opened up the elk rule. I am not saying what I do is easy and sometimes you have to play Columbo. I know a pretty good lawyer to make sure I am 100% legal. It has also taken me years to build contacts in the units I put in for, being considered an insider is easier than being considered an outsider. I know the ranchers make it super hard to find the information you want, especially UW ranches.
So splitlimb13 you had to go door to door two years ago. They try to make it hard like that. I found a place like that through research and word of mouth. When I went and introduced myself two days before season opened to scout I found out "their" hunters were going to have the whole ranch to hunt. So after some friendly conversation I got the whole ranch to hunt also. I might have just mentioned I had unrestricted access like "their" hunters and we could have a G&F officer come out and explain how I was wrong. I killed my elk on USFS land, since you can't camp on the ranch, and when I run into them in the small town they wave that I am still number 1 in their book.
Sparky, I am “number one” as well in areas I hunt in Colo when I buy a landowner voucher, that by definition and statute, Gives me access to hunt the entire ranch I bought it from. LOL. We have a very messed up landowner voucher system in Colo ripe for abuses. Callng out abusive property owners and outfitters is a sport to me. I appreciate your effort to keep them honest in your area, somebody has to do it
Note The SCR list DOES have UW properties....so it should be part of the discussion. on needed improvements.
Also, the landowner list OFTEN lists a contact other than owner of record, complicating effort to use assessor records to ID properties on COER and SCR. lists. I use an all of the above approach to my sluething. Looking forward to meeting a bunch of landowners and guides who will wish to bamboozle me with with tale that I am trespassing and they are gonna call the sheriff. I hope they do! Hopefully I will be easy to spot as the guy elbow deep in guts on their back 40.
I did not request the directions to the properties, that would have been good. I did receive a few directions with the maps though. Halfway throuh the 85 maps I bought, going well, albeit slow, so far to highlight each UW property on my forest and BLM maps.
I’ve been folowing this thread and can’t disagree with how terrible the maps can be. Seems like a hard requirement for a LEGAL textual description of enrolled acreage should be required and that the description be included in the LO list. Researchers would then only have to become familiar with legal descriptions which is MUCH easier to do than to knock on doors or fill out requests with the dept.
Easy fix to know where the boundaries are. Everyone take a turn and hunt where you're pretty sure it is private. Then, when you go to court, the prosecuting attorney will have to prove that you were indeed trespassing by showing the surveyed property as evidence. Let me know when the trial date is and I will record this information and pass along to everyone else - I will even provide it to the map programs for free.
Just think of the honor in taking one for the team!!
HDE is now involved in a conspiracy with me your honor.......give him the same sentence as me
If a person is convicted of trespassing while involved in hunting, trapping or fishing activities she/he will have his/her hunting, trapping or fishing privileges revoked
No Thanks
Hence, taking one for the team.
Guess I should've said "LOL", "grin" or even ; ^ ) after the post...
Isn't armed trespass a felony?
How about the possessors of the maps just start posting them in a new thread? We might end up with the land owner's providing clear and updated maps. Probably will be the most-read hunting thread in the state.
some dork pressed the send button twice
Looking up case law armed trespassing is not a felony. The way the legislature wrote the trespass laws it is only a misdemeanor. Section 30-14-1 defines criminal trespass and there is no felony provision. That is my layman answer.
Not that anybody will be trespassing. The point of getting the maps of record.
Almost impossible to get convicted of criminal trespass.
That’s no reason to trespass, however.
"That’s no reason to trespass, however. "
I hope most would agree but in the context of Eplus, sketchy maps, and no obvious signs that you may be inadvertently on private, it may be comforting to know certain criteria needs to be met to be convicted.
Game and fish tells me if the gate to a unit wide property is unlocked or open to consider it as the ranch giving drive in access to hunters. And if locked consider it walk in only access.
Of course some ranches are gonna let outfitters keep The gate locked when driving in with hunters but not much to be done about that in the rush of a hunt ongoing...just have to take the hit for the most part.
KHunter. That's exactly what happens far to often. They allow thier UW tag holders drive in lock the gates behind them and landlock so easy good hunting areas. So that isn't equal unrestricted access in my books if a certain tag holder can drive in but the 99% can't. Frustrating but by time you get any eplus compliance issues reported your hunt is over and ends there. Wish they would change the unrestricted access rule to allow passing through the property on maintained rds a requirement. Might make these UW ranches rethink a UW or RO status.
It would be nice if UW ranches were required to choose the type of unrestricted access that would be posted on the eplus list. Simply state foot traffic only or road access. It's near impossible to know what type of unrestricted access each ranch will allow. Especially since they answer the phone # they gave gnf or return common courtesy calls they signed up for by getting the elk welfare.
FYI, when I got my reply for maps of the unit I'm hunting, it was going to cost about $150. I emailed back asking if I could narrow it to the part of the unit I actually hunt and eventually they sent me a bill for $12.75. I simply gave them four landmarks and said I wanted the UW ranch maps for everything in the square. I'll let you know if the maps actually cover what I want. If they do, I'll consider $12.75 a bargain. They say they mailed them on 7/24 so hopefully I'll get them in a few days.
I made it quite clear at the meeting that these maps suck. This day and age they should be able to supply us with better maps, may be a good idea to make it the LO’s expense.
Good for you Ohio. Maybe not a perfect solution, but perhaps G&F can simply start by requiring LO's provide a "standardized" map, chosen by G@F, clearly defining private boundaries. Help them if needed. But no more submitting a pick and choose between a county survey plat, or a Gazetteer copy, or a BLM or a NF 1:24 00 scale or 1:26 00 scale or a picture taken by a terra sever satellite.
Boundaries should be easy to figure out without average people having to get a GIS degree.
I found it a little hard to believe but was told by the staff that G&F is developing their own maps...that they hope to release in coming years. Based on the shoddy data (maps) I just paid for it still seems it needs to start with required quality, standardized, maps (and full legal descriptions( from landowners. Otherwise how on earth will G&F have the needed data to create the quality maps they say they are creating?
Still the best idea I have heard is requiring UW landowners to post a sign at main parcel entrances stating they are UW.
The state already has something going with Carry Map, it shouldn't be an earth shaking proposal to include the UW properties in the application. Being as most everything seems to side w/ the LO's I see the UW ranch location issue an issue to make it more difficult for us to locate. There is no reason this information should be so obscure. Hell maybe start with giving the location on the Eplus page where they LO's hide behind PO boxes!
The topic of representation came up and it made me wonder what the NM Wildlife Federation has accomplished? or any other pro public land group? Does anyone know? I would love to see their efforts in action... it'll tell me how hard the wind is blowing that I seem to be pi$$ing into.
Totally agree Ohio, this stuff shouldn't be rocket science. LO's receive compensation for consideration. It's the consideration that's lacking and it's G&F job to enforce it.
As far as the NM Wildlife, all I can tell you is what I know. Once Jeremy Vesbach left things changed. He was sort of an outlier as he was big into hunting rights and was always in SF advocating them. But the NM Wildlife Federation is a chapter of the national Wildlife Federation which is about conservation, not hunting rights. So it's a weird deal.
It's the same debate that's been going on with the RMEF and Ducks Unlimited for years. Even though it's supported by hunters, they stand by their mission of conservation and they generally don't head up to Washington to lobby for gun rights even though 99% of their members own a firearm or three.
I want to find an organization that is all about public land access.
If you can find one let me know, I'm all in. There's just a lot of firepower around. Oil and gas wants access to drill, coal wants to mine, timber companies want their lumber, ranchers want to graze and none of them want hunters impeding on their operation, even thought it's public land.
That's just a lot of deep pockets for an organization to go up against which IMHO why us average Joe's get the short end of the stick.
How do you go about getting maps of the e plus areas? I can't find anything on it.
"I want to find an organization that is all about public land access."
Isn't RMEF more this way now?
I don’t know, I would like to see a list of access improvements over the last 10yrs vs the a list of successfully land locked public land.
I figured with Mr. Newberg's involvement with RMEF and his voice for public land, figured they leaned that way...
Anyone know which meeting newberg will attend or what comments/suggestions they will submit on their members behalf??
Dyjack, You need to contact gnf and request them. Note they charge $.75 per map so some units can get expensive.
As for public access I think in regards to eplus us NM residents are on our own. Don't think you'll see rmef or any other public land advocate outside of NM to stand up. Randy makes great videos and is a ideal example of public land hunting, but pretty sure he also has used eplus UW voucher to film here in NM. Even as many people are on these forums there's only a handful of us that I think really care. Need to keep educating the NM Hunter as much as possible.
Met Newberg at a NMWF meeting, great guy. Got a photo op with him. But he's not a NM resident and has no influence on our commission or legislators. He's a great general voice for the benefits of hunting. His message was for us to vote and do something about it.
He may not be a NM resident, but most effective lobbyists aren't residents in the states they push change for. Ever wonder why so many non-residents attend NM wildlife meetings about policy?
It's my beleif that once you enter the public spotlight, you don't get to sit out of the politics when it comes to public policy, which Mr. Newberg has entered into this spotlight, especially being a voice for keeping public lands public, and in which I'm sure he may disagree with me about not sitting out. Imagine what could happen if he showed up as a guest speaker at several fund raising banquets around the state...
NM is a deep rooted blue state with decades and centuries of old land grants and government ties to those holdings. It's not as easy as getting out to vote to make change - sounds good though.
I think what Splitlimb said is wcorrect in our direction as we need to win the small issues within eplus. Like maps, access transparency, etc. I personally would like to see UW go away and have no problem with ranchers hunting thier own property. Doubt UW is going anywhere so will keep pushing for things to clear up in areas that a decade into eplus should have been done already.
Lots of great ideas and I too would love to see e-plus gone. I think in the present as Barrera mentioned take small pieces that almost instantly will benefit us if possible.
HDE he was the guest speaker at a fundraiser for Garrett. His message was to vote for him. I don't know if he was paid or not, but he was very clear that in order to create change we have to put people in office that align with our values.
I agree with you and splitlimb as well. Small changes, here and there can eventually add up. Thats how EPlus became the giant pain in the rear end it's become. It started with a few ranchers complaining about elk. then it grew.
Everyone don't rely on public hunters just showing up tomorrow. Do us all a favor and text/invite all your extended hunting family out. We can get more people there and then our voice is louder.
Well split, how did it go? Adam, did you make it?
Ya we both made it. Will fill in later when I free up. Dang Split even showed up on his anniversary. Hope your dinner went well Geno lol.
Ya we both made it. Will fill in later when I free up. Dang Split even showed up on his anniversary. Hope your dinner went well Geno lol.
Hahaha worked out. My wife was still at work when it ended . I thought it went well. Some very good points were made I thought. Now we'll see if any of the Public input will be altering any decisions. We really need for hunters to make the meetings!
To be of any consideration suggestions must be submitted in writing.
I couldn't make the meeting, dang freshman orientation for my daughter, but I have sent e-mails and told all my hunting friends to make public comments. So I saw it mentioned does anybody know anything about the lady that beat out Garrett in the primary? I don't even know her name or what she stands for.
That dedication Split. Glad you guys made it hopefully they revamp this in a positive way.
Send email after email Jack, wishing and hoping isn't gonna get anything done. Trust me, I've been wishing and hoping to own a 500,000 acre ranch in WY... hasn't happened yet.
Here is the response I received after I sent a follow up email about the maps I received.
"Mr. Brazell I must inform you that these are the maps and the format that they come in. Records cannot be modified in any way to fulfill a request. These are the maps on file that were available for this specific unit. Please keep in mind that some of these maps are very old and are also provided to us by the landowner. Game and Fish is not responsible for creating the map of the lands and Ranches that are currently in the E- Plus program."
This is when I pointed out that at least one of the maps they sent me is for a property that is a RO ranch when I had requested UW ranches and that many of the numbers written on the top of the maps do not match current landowner list numbers and that the names are often not helpful either. I also asked specifically about a property I have hunted in the past (even talked with the landowner while on his property) that doesn't have a map for it in spite of the fact the property is still listed with the same acreage amount as previous years.
The good news is I did find one property that I will definitely check out. It has a water hole and is in the middle of a large section of private that I know holds good elk. Its even accessible from the pavement.
I have replied asking if there is anyone else I can speak with and acknowledging that the mess is not her creating but that I believe more should be done for public hunters who are doing the work to do it the proper way. We'll see what kind of response I get.
I sent some already. I'll send more later on. I looked into the eplus stuff a lot when I was trying to find maps. Decided not to try to get any after I saw the map they gave Barrera. At least the ball is starting to roll a bit. Little steps.
Gnf meeting. Overall it was a neutral setting. Not very many people showed up in total maybe 25. As for the new eplus ranch scoring system it help eliminate ranches that don't have consistent elk habitat. One thing gnf hasn't set the bar is what the minimal score will be to be considered for eplus. I think a minimum of 7 so you all look it over and email your thoughts. The bar needs to be as high as possible. They said they have surveyed 2000 ranches already, mostly through Google mapping. Also mentioned that the large ranches fail to convert about 30% of their elk vouchers into licenses. They didn't say but I'm 99% sure it's the cow tags. Good question is where should those unconverted tags go?? Gnf is proposing to put them in the SCR applicants pool. Email your thoughts on those tags. Could add cow only archery tags, give to seniors instead of taking from youth hunters. Email your thoughts. Something to definitely consider is the COER range expansions. If you hunt those units see how it will affect your public hunting, which it may. Also for deer if you have youth hunters, gnf is proposing to move youth deer hunt dates from Dec over to Thanksgiving Day weekend. So they would need to make a schedule change to the youth encouragement Nov dates, or you could have a lot hunters in the field that weekend. Email your thoughts. As for the eplus maps both Split and I highly encouraged they correct/update them as they do thier new scoring surveys. They will finally get a idea what us public hunters have dealt with for 13yrs. They seemed posative in making a change in the mapping system so please cover that in your emails. In addition to the maps I would recommend you let them know we want GPS coordinates for the Eplus ranches , and also the type of access the ranch allows. Simply stating vehicle access, foot access. This will help us plan what areas we can hunt prior to showing up to uw locked gates. Problem were having with uw ranches is they allow thier voucher tags in to hunt then lock the gates forcing everyone else to foot access. Thrust me this is a issue my 13yr son experienced on his archery elk hunt last yr. Frusterating. For eplus maps I think they're trying to improve but it will prob be 4-6 yrs imo before we see improvements. Hope I'm wrong but with a few people taking care of these issues it's going to take time.
Splitlimb can add on, correct me, as I'm sure if missed a lot of info. Would be pretty awesome if we public hunters could pack the house on these little meetings.
Barrera I pretty much included in my input everything you said. The one thing I did was add there should be a penalty to the ranch if you try to contact the listed contact and they don't get back to you. If enough hunters complain about not be contacted back the G&F department could have test letters sent to see if they get letters or phone calls back. Same thing with equal access like you were having problems with. Have penalties included for situations like that.
