Contributors to this thread:
Proposed antelope rule
Check the dept website for info on how to comment on proposed changes to the antelope rule. It basically proposes to do away with A-plus altogether and manage like deer: public draw with unitwide authorization and unlimited private tags good on deeded only.
For 19-20 license year.
That's how it used to be, sorta...
Yep, love it.. support it!!! A good compromise.
That’ll decimate the antelope. Ranchers will see big money for a couple years and sell way too many tags. Once the antelope population drops to a non huntable population there won’t be any money left for the ranchers and NM won’t be known for the quality anymore.
Do we prefer the A-Plus system?? I sure don't
With unlimited private land buck tags I don't see how it will decimate the herd. Generally speaking does control the population. It seems to me that the proposed change is an improvement.
An improvement until the LO implements the Jennings Law...
Let a LO use Jennings law. The ranch down the road who manages the land appropriately and efficiently will love the animals moving over. The ranch could charge an appropriate market driven fee to hunt their own land and make a nice profit for doing so, and they could select who accesses their land.
What raceguy said. Further, if it’s a rancher with smaller deeded to public ratio, the animals will go to the public land where draw hunters can get them.
Another thing is that hunters will hunt the whole unit and not be placed on a ranch where they are not wanted, no more broken up units and if I am not mistaken no more unit wide LO tags. Also the G&F is and have been moving antelope into public areas where they have not been and from what we were told they are doing well in these areas.
It has also been suggested that the G&F implement a check and balance just incase herds start to dwindle from too many LO tags, so if the biologist says the herds are suffering they can step in to keep herds healthy, would that actually work? I don't know. The biggest downfall IMO is that many of NM's antelope are on these big ranches which means the public will never see these animals even though they belong to the State, unless they buy a LO tag.
If this goes through, which it probably will, we need to make sure our public lands have dependable water and plenty of food.
Main problem I see is that many areas of public are not accessible (landlocked by private). The private tag hunters won't be able to hunt that land (that will be very difficult to monitor since they are very likely not fenced and again, are landlocked so unlikely that law enforcement will go there - very likely that the private tag hunters will indeed hunt there). And the public tag hunters won't be able to hunt there because there is no access.
It may create opportunities for public hunters to pay tresspass fee to the ranchers for access to the landlocked public areas.
I would love to see something that negotiates access to landlocked public lands, but doubtful that will ever happen.
I've never drawn a pronghorn tag in NM over the course of 20-years, so at the end of the day whatever is implemented has little to no effect on my personally. I think the more important matter is it may set a precident for pending changes to the E-Plus elk system. Put some thought to those implications.
Seems alot on MM are against it. Can't figure out why. Seem's there is dependence on the G&F ability to negotiate hunter access to hunt private lands, which has locked out a lot of ranches in the first place. Sometimes it might be better to let the individual hunter make his/her own deal with a private property owner.
There's a ton of public land here in NM and there's virtually nothing stopping the "public" from providing habitat on those lands.
I would like to see a ranching for wildlife program, repairing the many earthen tanks that have busted also adding more of them in certain areas. the Sandia pueblo did a nice job with the tanks along Tramway, we just gotta fix the overflows so that they don't blow out again. I would gladly pay another dollar or two for the habitat stamp if it went into a tank rebuilding program, there are a "bunch" of busted tanks out there that only need the overflows worked over. In some places you could have a solar panel well at the head of a long canyon and have drinkers set up through out the canyon, on years of drought you just run the well to fill all the drinkers up, if ranchers can do it why the hell can't we? Rain guzzlers are just not a stable water supply, IMO they are a good thing but not stable enough to sustain wildlife.
They need to go to a system similar to Wyoming. No landowner permits at all. Each tag comes with a coupon to give to the LO when you harvest an antelope on their property. They can also charge access fees and manage their herds however they choose. It goes to supply and demand. The only issue we have here is the Jennings law that Wyoming doesn’t have.
There are no unit wide land owner tags given for for pronghorn . I hope this passes so many can have opportunities to hunt pronghorn more than once every twenty years or so. I've seen some of the biggest pronghorn on public land and can not draw an archery tag to save my life . Fact of the matter is there will be ranches that over hunt the herds on their property, there will be ranches that manage them properly, and there will be ranches that do absolutely nothing with them except let them grow into Giants like they've been doing forever. For those who are worried about the land locked public property that to will remain as is .. the ranchers will continue to illegally allow their licence holders to hunt on them with private land only tags while G+F stands by and does nothing to stop it. This year alone we have several witnesses to an outfitter selling RO tags and his hunters are constantly being seen on public. For two archery hunts in a row the warden was notified several times by several people and nothing was done . So as far as that part of the bargain ,sorry fellas.
Personally, to me Jennings would probably not be an issue here. LO's are still getting tags. If a LO depredates using Jennings, no more tags as that's the way it is now. I would think that larger ranches who do well would be in favor of this as now they can choose who is on their property, rather than whomever wins the lottery. Also, alot of smaller properties who don't meet the minimum acre requirement would also now benefit.
This would be good where there is a lot of public land but areas like the Northeast part of the state where the majority of the property is private could get very expensive for the public hunter as the lucky person in the draw would no longer get private land access as it the past when they were assigned to a ranch. You would now have to negotiate or purchase access on your own. I am sure that the outfitters would work deals with the ranchers so that they can control access to the land which would force the everyday hunter to pay high fees to hunt them. Double edged sword as that is where the majority of the states Antelope reside or at least a large portion of them.
^^^ if that happens, be cheaper to go to WY, SD, ND, NE...
If it's cheaper to go to those states then lets let the natural market apply. LO's here will have to set the price for access to hunt at equally or less (more if they manage well). Supply and demand and there's plenty of public land here in NM.
All a LO has to do is attract a handful of high rollers and they are set for the year. I doubt they would dabble in the "free market" to give everyone an equal opportunity.
They need to put some of the money to work on water sources on public antelope lands. Will go a long way to increase the numbers on public lands and draw them from the ranches.
Bingo WW. Just what Mr. Elite was saying. We should probably stop relying on private lands for water and thus, hunting opportunities. There's a ton of public land, just not much water on it. Therefore the reliance on hitting the lottery to hunt on private is too great as of now.
I wouldn’t count on water works on state land if Veneklassen gets elected. That guy was all in on Obama’s waters of the USA rule which means he’s for restricting any impediments to water flow such as dirt tanks.
There's no reason to make assumptions about what Veneklassen will do when elected. I'll be happy to give you his cell number so you can discuss these issues with him directly. It's easy to "spin" information. There's a huge difference between opposing a dam on the Gila River and building a dirt berm to provide water for pronghorn. If nothing else, a personal conversation with Garrett would help you understand the guy you insist on bashing at every opportunity?
Thanks arctic, but I’d rather him answer the particular question in a public forum where he can be held accountable for his stance. It’s a very important issue, and that rule was much much broader than dams. A “berm” as you put it, falls squarely within CWA as interpreted and promoted by Veneklassen. Ever wonder why so many tanks on forest land weren’t repaired under Obama? Try impounding water on your own and see what the army corps of engineers will say about it. That’s why I keep spotlihting that guys support for such a radical rule.
Intruder: I believe arctic's point is "how in the world do you expect Garrett to stumble across your post on a forum and under a thread title that he would be unlikely to find in the first place, and then personally answer your accusitory statement?"
Smarba, The point of my posting the question here is not for him to read it here. Instead it is to create a question that I hope a lot of guys on here will ask of him as he continues his campaign. I think all can agree that creating new water sources on public land, at least for the new antelope rule, is a good thing.
I see your point Intruder. And I agree more water development is a good thing for critters.
I guess all I'm asking is that you provide more detailed information, perhaps some reference links, etc. There is a main forum thread that blew up "RMEF Scam" or some such where a guy says he heard something from a ranch hand about RMEF. He didn't really have any facts but was being accusitory. I would agree that if what you say is true, it would be concerning. However, things may have been taken out of context or may not even be true in the first place. I'd rather you post a link or quote or something that indicates where Garrett took a stand on something versus just slinging it out there. I will do some checking on this myself.
I will be happy to. As soon as I am home I will forward links. In the meantime just search NMWF press releases from the last few years.
I spoke with Garrett about this. His response was what I expected. Impounding water [building a detention pond for wildlife] is vastly different from constructing a dam on one of our Country's last free-flowing rivers. If people would listen to candidates without regard for the "D" or "R" next to the candidate's name we would be much better off.
Great! Arctic, thanks for asking Garrett about this. I agree that some things are more important that looking at the "D" or "R" behind a candidate's name. One of those things is looking at the laws and rules those candidates support:
Now, I'd like to see how Garrett would explain how a 404 dredge/fill permit under the CWA distinguishes between a wildlife detention pond and a dam. IT DOES NOT. Neither one is a 404 (f) exemption. Dredge and fill can come from a few shovelfuls (as a few folks in Georgia painfully found out for building a fishing pond without Army Corps approval) or from a Dam. That "stuff" that you just dug up to build your retention berm is "fill."
Garrett, as Executive Director of NMWF, was ALL FOR making every arroyo and depression (with any evidence of past running waterflow) subject to CWA 404 permits under Obama's Clean Water Rule (the WOTUS rule). Yes, that includes building a wildlife detention pond because it is not exempt under 404(f). You see, you can only impound water for wildlife where water flows. Why is this a big deal, you ask? According to the US chamber of commerce org, the average cost to obtain a 404 dredge/fill permit was over 200 THOUSAND dollars as of 2015. Further, take a stroll through that act and see what the penalties for non-compliance are. They are staggering.
Now, I happen to agree with Garrett. There is a HUGE difference between building a dirt pond for wildlife and a dam. But the CWA doesn't recognize a difference, which is why narrowing the definition of "waters of the USA" is so critical. Now if Garrett would throw NMWF under the bus for its absurd support for the WOTUS rule, he would be my hero. But....I seriously doubt that he would, for doing so would be to also throw Heinrich, Udall, and Grisham-Lujan (sp?) under the same bus. That trifecta of far left support I'm afraid he just can't do without. But, I'm open to surprises, and will hold out hope that Garrett will publicly come out and say that he would not be an impediment to such wildlife water works on State lands, even though it's at odds with his support of the WOTUS rule. THAT assurance is what we need, because there's a lot of greenies out there who are under the assumption that Garrett would not be behind these water works, or any other development, due to his organization's support of Obama's WOTUS rule.
As I already mentioned, I've spent almost my entire adult life as a registered Republican but I left the party since it chose to include in it's platform support of the transfer of federal public lands to the states. Even though I am "mostly" Republican-minded, Martin Heinrich has proven to be the most pro-sportsman politician I have NEVER voted for. While I have never voted for Heinrich, I can tell you that after having spent time with him he is the strongest advocate I have ever met for public land protection in NM.
Public lands might not matter as much to you? Perhaps as a tag-receiving landowner who lives outside of New Mexico but owns enough land to receive authorizations to sell New Mexico's wildlife to the highest bidder you have a different perspective? If so, that's fine.
In any case, if you don't like Garrett then don't vote for him!....assuming you are even afforded a vote in New Mexico??
I had a long conversation with Garrett about intruder's post, it's BS!
There will be some really good things to come from Garrett becoming Land Commissioner, if you are able to vote for SLC then I strongly suggest you take your questions straight to Garrett, you will be pleasantly surprised.
The option is the same old Ray Powell who was in the office twice and didn't do anything to speak of or a representative of lessees that despises the general public (a scoundrel like Dunn....or worse)
Who would you like to see as NM State Land Commissioner and why? You can badmouth any candidate all you want, but I'm interested to know who you would prefer to hold that position and the changes you would expect from your preferred State Land Commissioner.
Funny, the original post was about the proposed antelope rule, then with discussions about habitat. Intruder posted " I wouldn't count on water works if...someone is elected" Get over it. Habitat can always be provided, the public needs to do it. This should be a discussion about wildlife and opportunity, not nitpicking small issues and politcal views.
Arctic, Veneklasen needs to pick a lane. He’s either for or against building wildlife retention works. I believe he’s for it, but he must reconcile his support for wotus rule because it ran counter to this. Believe it or not, Veneklasen at this point is the one I dislike the least. I'm not jumping on his bandwagon just yet, though.
Mrelite, what’s BS? His support for wotus rule or the fact that CWA doesn’t exempt wildlife ponds?
Sorry fellas but his lobbying for that rule is one fact that I will continue to hammer him on.
Raceguy, you’re right, as long as those improvements aren’t waterworks within a water of the USA. Believe me, there’s nothing to get over.
Intruder, if you are a NM voter reach out and talk to Garrett directly, he is easy to find, if you are not a voter then I don't think he really needs to hear from you or explain anything to you. Anyway FYI Garrett doesn't have any problem whatsoever in creating or fixing dirt tanks on state lands, as a matter of fact he has some really good thoughts on the subject and in time they will come to light.
I would strongly suggest that if someone has a question or concern to ask Garrett directly, no one here is his spokes person, we are just public hunters that do not want another POS like Dunn or a Do Nothing Powell in the SLC position.
Intruder, So you live and are a LO in AZ and are also a LO in NM, is that right? Are you now a lessee or have you ever been a lessee on NM state lands? what about a state land lessee in AZ? I just want to know exactly why you are in this conversation.
Again, what exactly was BS? The fact that he's against new dirt tanks? Perhaps, but his wotus support indicates otherwise and he has not publicly come out made that support clear. That inconsistency is the whole point here.
I'll have to disagree whether or not he wants to hear from me, or those like me. You see, this inconsistency will come to light eventually. He's billing himself as someone who wasn't happy with progress made on "the outside," so he thinks he can be more effective "on the inside." Think of how many po'ed greenies are out there now that Trump is (rightly) reining in the EPA and getting rid of the WOTUS rule. Who are all those wotus supporters now looking to for support across the west? You got it - "insiders" who can, as SLOs and other land management position holders, carry out de-facto restrictions similar to wotus. Can the NM SLO? You bet he can. Are any of them "calling him privately" as you guys are? You bet they are.
This is why it's important for Veneklasen, if he really is for dirt tanks, to CLAIM THIS NOW, publicly, in order to distance himself from that wotus-loving pressure that is sure to come.
I'm not a lessee of state lands, now or perviously of any state lands in any state. We did have a NM forest lease a while back, though and leased a good part of the Mescalero rez, and some BLM in Southern AZ. The NM cattle ranch is all-deeded 14.25 sections, but 3 sections abut State Land and about 1.5 abut BLM on the neighbor's lease. I hope that's detailed enough for you. What are your land holdings, since it's obviously a salient point here? If you want to know exactly why I'm in this conversation, it's because:
I'm FOR the new antelope rule and I'm FOR groups being able to create new water sources on public land in order to draw the antelope out TO the public land. That's why I started this thread. Of the 3 guys running for SLO, Veneklasen is the only one who has explicitly come out in favor of rules that deter such projects. He is, therefore, the only one who will be beholden to enviros who are against the idea of any such work.
But, since he doesn't need to hear from me (no Democrat ever does) he should hear it from you guys. Better he be asked this by hunters now than by the greenie anti-hunting crowd later.
I'm still hoping the GOP has someone other than Lyons join the race. If it does, I'll be sure they hammer this particular point as well. You see, that's what we "non-voting" contributors do.
I agree with you intruder, Veneklasen needs to clarify his position on several different issues. Right now its hard to tell if he is the better candidate. You guys know dirt tanks are pretty much useless unless it rains. JMHO
I appreciate your candor regarding your position on NM issues and your residency, I also agree with you, anyone running for this office needs to be publicly specific with all the issues and I also expect Garrett to do the same. Like I mentioned none of us here are spokesman for Garrett, all we know is what he has personally said he would do and I expect him to do what he says to the best of his ability. I am also no Democrat, never have been and never will be but I know Garrett to be a guy of integrity despite some of his views. I can also say that I will be bringing up the issues you are mentioning, since you are a LO in NM I do think you should reach out to him and have a conversation about it and if you don't like what he says I am sure we would love to hear your take on why, I also don't want any issues stopping any water projects from happening.
Lyons has had his chance as well as Powell, the GOP has burned the party line in my opinion and I am ready for a shake up in the SLO and Garrett is all in when it comes to public hunters and public lands, this type of friendship is what we have been denied in NM for a very long time.
Priley, I also agree that unless it rains they are worthless, the same can be said about Guzzlers, as you know these dirt tanks have been a major player in the ranching industry and for the wildlife for a hundred years, some have water regularly and some do not, without them we would not have wildlife in many places of NM. I'll bet there are 100's of tanks that just need the overflows repaired and in my opinion that would be well worth the money spent. I would also like to see solar wells put at the head of certain long canyons with a chain of Guzzlers going down the canyon so for years of drought you just fire up the well and fill all of the Guzzlers, similar to what the ranchers do now. We need a robust wildlife ranching program, what we have isn't cutting it!
I'm damned sure not a Democrat, but since Republicans have adopted the idea of transferring federally managed lands to the States, I'm not a Republican either. Besides this issue, Republicans used to be for smaller government and lower taxes and that isn't the case anymore either.
With regard to the State Land Office, I know most of the candidates. That said, I KNOW that Garrett is unquestionably the best candidate for public land hunters. Ted Turner and others might prefer a different State Lands Commissioner, but any NM Resident who primarily hunts public lands will be better represented by Garrett than by any other candidate.
That's a point that I don't believe anyone or any group can effectively argue?
Back to the Antelope rule.......What can we do to improve habitat on public land? Food, water, and cover, predator management, etc.. I would love to see a water project in NM like was done in AZ but is that possible? With the Pecos and Rio Grande going to TX what are their water rights? If we have water (stock tanks or guzzlers) how do we get the feed and cover? May need a different subject for this discussion.
From what I understand now, and I may not have it right, if you get an archery tag you can hunt any public land and ranch that you can get access to. That means you either get written permission or pay a trespass fee to hunt the ranch. If you get a rifle tag you have to stay on the ranch you are assigned to, no public land hunting. So you may get a ranch that has few to no antelope on it and can't move to public land that may have more antelope.
I figure if I ever want to hunt antelope I am heading to WY. Tell me how the new rule is going to change that.
78cj5, You are correct in the fact that archery tags are minimally affected. Rifle tags are drastically affected as they would be treated much like NM Archery tags are today.
Wyoming is a great option, but I prefer to negotiate arrangements with local LO's to hunt pronghorn right here in NM. I do not have the blessing to shoot a BC animal, but that matters nothing to me. I am happy to accept the advice from a LO as to what animal that LO would like to see harvested.
Let's decimate the pronghorn population in NM. Great plan. World class hunting on a draw tag, let's get rid of that.
Don't cut off your nose to spite your face boys. Doesn't change bow tags by the way, except for the fact that your public land pronghorn are huntable in rifle season. On Public land that's not in A Plus. It's a lot, by the way.
I've applied for 20+ years and never drawn. My son has drawn 3 y/o tags in 6 years, lucky turd. He's killed 2/3, on public land that is not enrolled in A plus. Believe it or not, they will get smashed by rifle hunters within two years. Goodbye P&Y public land pronghorn.
Sorry, I haven't been around in a while. Is this a push by NMWF? Where's the fat kid who liked to argue? What about Jeremy? Is he still the dude? No? WTF? Is NMWF a resume builder for environmentalists with bigger aspirations? Agendas? No, really what does Jeremy do now?
Under the guise of let me guess, equality? Rich vs poor? Y'all proclaim to be conservative, but you don't see the wool being pulled over your eyes. Getting worked over by a greenie agenda. Standard NMWF propaganda. Pit the haves vs the have nots, sounds familiar.
Veneklasen is only as credible as those he runs with. Birds of a feather, anyone? His cronies in DC and with the National Wildlife Federation should tell you everything you need to know about this dude.
As an aside, I don't understand the anger towards Dunn. He's a native New Mexican (unlike 80% of those crying about inequality on these boards) doing the job he was elected to do. He is increasing the income for the state trust lands (HIS JOB). OOOOH, big bad landowner. Yeah yeah, same old crap from the same old cast of characters on bowsite.
We have a bowhunting org! We fight for the little guy! Send us money! OH wait, nobody cares, we don't have a website..........Can't afford it.........LOL!
that is funny I don't care who you are LMAO
" Where's the fat kid who liked to argue? What about Jeremy? Is he still the dude? No? WTF? Is NMWF a resume builder for environmentalists with bigger aspirations? Agendas? No, really what does Jeremy do now?"
He resigned to move back to remote Montana to take care of his severely ailing father. Anything else?
Jeremy is actually living back in NM, but has a new job where he is able to spend a lot of time in Montana with his family. In his new role he was INSTRUMENTAL in getting the Sabinoso Wilderness opened up to public access for hunters. So.....you're welcome! What have you done for public land hunters lately Mr. 505?
Thanks arctic.... for setting the truth, I lost track of him when he resigned and went back to Montana to take care of his dad. It wasn't about "aspiratations" or "agendas" or environmentalists to get a professional career in DC. Just wanted to take care of his family....thus resigned, as we all would have because family is woth more.
Just sent in my antleploe comments to Nicole.Quintana@state.nm.us regarding this issue. I support it. The State needs to work with private orgs to access millions of dollars of private grants to improve habitat on public lands. Ted Turner's own Wildlife Foundation give's millions every year, they even gave 30K to a certain State Organization, if you know the public info to look for. It need's to be asked for, with a plan. And if you can get matching contributions from other private foundations, including public like F&WL ....yep
I'm supporting this bill as well. In 17 years I've drawn one tag and managed to kill the only buck on the ranch before the outfit with the $4500 hunter did. Not all ranches are world class,in fact most in certain units should not even be given tags. I've seen alot of quality antelope on public land as well as private. I agree the deer are not managed correctly ,and in a majority of our state trophy class deer do not exist so neither do the the high prices to hint on these ranches. If a LO is any type of intelligent they will manage the heard properly or over hunt them and push them on to the neighbors or public. I'd put the pronghorn in the same bag with elk and think they're worth more ,for lack of better words, so will be taken care of more by LO just like elk.
Thanks splitlimb. I know a rancher who has thousands of acres and has no problems letting you hunt. Just knock on is door and ask. He's not profit driven, he just wants to meet and talk to the person who's going on his land. He's not enrolled in A-Plus because of it. Not profit driven, just wants to talk to hunters and make sure they will close the gates behind them.
Raceguy that's awesome,!!! I may need to talk to you more about this rancher ????.. changes are definitely going to happen. Gonna interesting to see exactly what and how it is exactly going to be..
Splitlimb.. Exactly! I just knocked on the door and introduced myself. Now I shoot doves on their property anytime I want. Good folks and they dont mind a bit. Just need to ask.
Raceguy, Does the ranch have any quail?
Elite.. man I wish, they are east. Need to go south with ur new pup!
I just went north of Roswell and only saw 3 covies in 2 days and they all busted long before any opportunities. The area either got slammed or there was a huge decline in bird numbers, it was his first quail hunt so I felt bad for the dog, poor thing tore himself up and didn't get on any birds
Quail here are soo hit and miss. One year the bootheel is good, the next is vacant. The yearly hatch is soo dependent on water. I can normally find birds in the draws on the north end of Caballo, and the east side of Elephant Butte. Constant water source.
While mildly interesting, how did we go from Antelope Rule to finding quail?!
Elite just got a new pup he's breaking in. Still waiting to hear from G&F.
Just wanted raceguy to take the dog and me to that awesome ranch!
LOL no, I get it, but there are a couple of new fangled forms of communication called email and texting where you can chatter about hunting quail. Or start a new thread about quail. I check back on this thread because I see that there have been new posts and I am curious what others think about the proposed rules, but the majority of posts seem to be off topic. Carry on.
I think the early hail storms decimated the quail eggs this year. As for the Lopes I don't think the proposed changes will do anything positive for the herd. If you're worried about your individual needs for a hard to draw antelope tag then get in line, or go out of state and shoot a dink. Then you'll know why NM tags are hard to draw. Personally I would like to see less commercialized hunting, so the less power you give to the LO's to scalp tags and charge trespassing fees the better. I think the proposed changes will do the opposite.
Most LO's give a rats ass about antelope, last LO I talked to wanted them dead for tearing up his fence. If you put an unlimited harvest on them they will get hammered. At leas the Aplus has a limit. I live in the SE where some big antelope are.. there also used to be quality deer there too! but way too many tags issued plus the LO tags have ravaged the herd.
The LO's with large tracks of land (IME) usually just hand over hunting rights to an outfitter and collect a beefy check in the process. Talked to one LO and he was getting a few thousand from the outfitter per barbary hunt. I know another place by chama 3400acre+ that does the same thing with elk. BTW that place is for sale if anyone wants to go halvesies.... only 8mil. I'm not positive but its rumored they get $80k for hunting rights and tags per yr.
Ohio, I don't have time to argue with you about this too!!!! Go back to the Matthews forum hahahahahaha !!!
There's always LO's who are going to make money. A LO with 3400 acres must be managing correctly and not allowing everything on the ranch to be blasted way to make 80K. That's Ted Turner money for RO tags and he would get that via LO tags or access fee because it's managed properly and has good habitat. Deer has been in serious declince for 40 years now, IMHO very little has to do with LO deer tags.
It's occums razor. If a LO wants to make a few bucks, he/she can't eliminate a heard. They could do some damage and end up on the front page of the ABQ Journal but eventually the lopes would simply move somewhere else as soon as shots start ringing everywhere during a short season. I'f they really don't want them, they could go out tomorrow and use Jennings as their tool to eliminate year round.
Most seem to be like nice folk who as long as you look presentable and ask, they have no problem. Maybe a small fee or offer to help repair some fences. Some do have arrangements with guides, but there's a ton who do not participate in APLUS.
So I can listen to you power stroke your hoyt???? :)
But seriously I don’t see how this proposed rule will benefit the lope herd. Uea it may allow more people to hunt, but when it only benefits the upper 10% of hunters I don’t see the advantage. Especially when these hunters can and will hunt lopes anywhere. The nm quality will only last so long. Unless I missed something?
To be fair, NM got one a few years ago, and broke a tie with Arizona. But Wyoming nearly boubles Boone and Crockets over NM. NM is not necessarily the puddy on the pedestal when it comes to big goats. Up there sure! But not necessarily great if you are a big bucks trophy hunter guy. Two Arizona bucks were tied and held the record before.
We have some quantity and quality. Some just want to hunting, maybe go with their buds or take some kids.
G&F has said they will have a check and balance system in place incase of over harvest so hopefully that won't be a big problem. I think the G&F has been proactive with replanting antelope in public locations that haven't had any animals, they say these herds are doing great and are just about ready to hunt, it's all about creating a sustaining habitat.
One of my concerns is enforcement of keeping LO tags on deeded lands and not on the leased, there are lots of big parcels of State and BLM that are surrounded by deeded that the public can't get to or is very difficult to get to,
Do we just let the LO's hunt it like its their own? Should we hold their unlimited tags as ransom until they give access to these parcels? Should we hold back unlimited deer tags until we get access?
The Jennings law is what keeps the LO's from being forced to the access table.
It truly is an exhausting ordeal . I really doubt any pronghorn will be introduced to public lands or any lands . The deer numbers are diminishing and have got no help from anyone in regards to ways to properly manage or conserve them , much less a species who outnumber the deer 10-1 . The state can make us feel included by sending emails asking for feedback about proposed bills , and the harsh reality is that at the end of the day it's their decision and really don't have their ears open to suggestion. OH ... RACE GUY, ELITE... THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR FOR COMING BACK TO THE SUBJECT OF THE ORIGINAL POST... god forbid you talk about hunting on a hunting forum.. no matter how brief the conversation was hahaha .. ( that's sarcasm ) I swear some days I think a forum should be made named " EGOTISTICAL A$$HOLES WHO OWN BOWS"!!! Good luck with the pup and the quail.
Jesse and I went to a meeting with Stuart Lilly of the G&F and he showed us specific areas where they have been transplanting antelope , some areas use to have them and some areas never had them, he said straight up that these herds were ready to hunt which means they have been doing these transplants for a while, I have no reason not to believe the guy.
Doesn't participating in the A-plus and E-plus programs require LO's to give access upon request?
Still no quail, got skunked yesterday down by Socorro, didn't even see one, 8 miles for me 17 for the dog.
Still no quail, got skunked yesterday down by Socorro, didn't even see one, 8 miles for me 17 for the dog.
In the E-plus program the LO gets unit wide tags and the public gets access to the land in the program although access to most of these lands has been a complete joke and failure, even after technology came around the G&F still did not implement GPS coordinates and maps to the public.
I don't know much about A-plus but I believe you get assigned a ranch and they had to give you access, I am not sure if that access has been good or bad, I've never had a tag for a ranch. My most favorite place for antelope (from years back) was public lands, I have been pushing for some archery tags there but for some reason they will not do it.
I would like to see the G&F have online maps and coordinates to all of the open gate ranches that come from this new antelope system plus the public should get clear designated (shown online) access to any BLM and State lands that are large enough to hunt, public hunters out on those lands would be the eyes and ears for enforcement of keeping LO tags on deeded lands only and it would open up some lands that we haven't had access to.
Jennings law needs to go, we can't negotiate with it in place.
Lot's of good stuff Elite! It would be easier to ammend the law than replace. He is (was) a woolgrower from Roswell. Had problems with lions killing his sheep. If ranchands killied lions (a game protected species), even witnessing livestock damage, it was still poaching and punishable by law, at the time.
He simply said "I will fix this crap". And now we have Jennings Law which is being abused. He never intended it to be abused. His land in Roswell rarely sees a whole lot of lopes, and elk? Must be lost elk. It's an abused law whose intention was to protect property. Livestock property.
Somehow "property" now includes wildlife on unsown or uncultivated grasses. Go figure, damn those herbivores.
Ohio, they are a little bit different:
"Doesn't participating in the A-plus and E-plus programs require LO's to give access upon request?"
This is true, but sort of. Many with quality habitat don't participate in the progams. Can you publicly draw for a hunt on Ted Turner's property? Nope. Yet he gets tags, and good for him, but they sell for $10k. But he has a hunt program in place which he reinvests the money to provide habitat.
There are just too many who recieve tags, who literally provide nothing (and I don't necesarily blame them, its the system). I've purchased maps from G&F and visited only to see barron moose pasture. No water sources, no habitat. Their land just happens to reside into whatever the A-plus or E-plus areas desingnated by G&F. Most hunters who purhcase a tag hunt on neighboring NF or BLM (especially for elk). This creates overcrowding on public land. Many landowners seldom see a hunter.
I agree, with this day and age of technology and the UW Eplus ranches should be easy to locate but are about impossible to find with the P.O. addresses given on the nmdgf website.
I'm not nearly as familiar with the system as you guys, just trying to figure out the major flaws which seems to be the abuse of a law to only benefit the LO's wallet. If no positive changes are proposed I'd really like to see LO's taxed on the sale of their tags. Taxed for public habitat improvement and other maintenance projects, give back to the land instead of take take take... Turner makes a killing, of course he'd gladly write of some income to wildlife.. its a win win win for him. Win on taxes, win in the conversationalists eye, and improve game quality that crosses his fence. Not condemning him, and glad to hear he does, but surly it boosts his stock more than anything.
The idea of taxing LO tags has come up in Santa Fe a few times. The big problem is tracking it all and how to collect. A LO sells a voucher for say $500 to a local, who then sells it to a broker for $700, who then sells it to a client or on Ebay for $1000.
Authorizations may literally change hands five times before being redeemed at G&F for the actual license.
I'd really like to see all all landowner tags go away.PERIOD !!! $$$$$$$$$
I'm with you there splitlimb.
Thats why I like this proposal. No more "leveraging" G&F for tags good on public lands.
From what I'm hearing, G&F want's out of the tag business and wants to focus on habitat on public.
I agree split, but we all know its not going to vanish overnight and not without a LO fight.. baby steps. I just don't see how changing limited # of LO tags to unlimited is going to benefit anyone other than the greedy LO's. It will allow people who have permission the opportunity, but how long before said generous LO's are offered cash to trespass?
Immediately I could see this putting more people and children in the field, but like I said the $ offers from guides (and texans) will catch up. I think antelope LO tags should be strictly for population management and should only be doe tags in a limited fashion, this would open the doors for sportsmen looking to fill the freezer and/or get their children afield, heck, make LO buck tags youth only! Devalue the tags.
I wished I'd known about those meeting dates, I could've made one... I had only heard about a meeting in Carlsbad, and I think that was about access.. not pronghorn tags.
Ohio, I think this proposal IS about devaluing the antelope tags. That’s a good thing. Those who don’t want lopes on their land will open their gates. Those who do will manage access. My biggest problem with assigned LO tags is the artificial value it places on ranch real estate. Go to Chas Middleton , or hayden outdoors websites to see what I’m talking about. The days of “buying a ranch for the wildlife is like buying a car for the floormats” are over. Nowhere is this more obvious than in E-plus, because ranches in elk habitat tend to have a lower deeded/public ratio than those in antelope country. Thus, they leverage those tags much more.
Part of the dept’s problem in not meeting buck cull goals is folks trying too hard to manage for quality, I think. That tends to be in areas where outfitters have bought up the tags and manage on a larger scale than the individual LO. Unlike other species, a lope buck matures much quicker (I heard somewhere around 2 to 3 years, but not sure).
I can see how it could potentially lessen the appeal of purchasing a ranch for its wildlife, but I don't foresee this happening if the said sale property has a proven track record of quality and quantity. Resources are resources, and wildlife is renewable compared to minerals and oil. Lets say a ranch gets 10 Aplus tags, but the LO feels 20 can be harvested while still maintaining a solid herd. Now instead of selling the vouchers he sets a trespass fee, then in the event of a non harvest he can sell another until he meets HIS set quota of 20. The LO can now potentially increase his profits several times higher than when he had limited tags. Furthermore the LO still reserves the right to lease out hunting rights to a guide service who may have multiple ranches which now makes the purchased tag(s) good on any private ranch with in the unit, not just the assigned A-plus ranch. Yes no?
The only 2 benefits I see is more tags lowering the demand, thus lessening cost, but it will not be immediate. Also, the few people who have free access to land will get the opportunity to hunt antelope at the cost of a tag, but as I stated earlier.. how long will that last when money enters the equation???
Well, in A-plus money has already entered the equation. At lease under the new rules, the money should only affect the deeded land. Public land will be purely in the draw.
I do read, nowhere more than here, about lack of access to landlocked public land. That is the exception to the rule, and a whole different topic.
A lot of LO’s have regular hunters, what will change? They will most likely continue the pay the same money to hunt but instead of the usual limit of 3 they can all buddy up and now 3 turns to 6. Said LO just increased his profit, even if he lowers his price slightly to entice the others.
My position is though it is change is it a good change? Are some cutting off their nose in spite of their face? Or better yet... obama.
As for deeded land I don’t know enough to comment.
Intruder, great point on artificial value. If a LO wants to decimate the heard on private deeded lands it would kill the value of the land. Not to mention they always had the ability to do so and never have. Many like to be stewards of the land and enjoy a cup of coffee on the portch watching wildlife. It's up to the public to be respectful.
Ohio, and perhaps help with Intruder as I know just enough to be dangerous so I'll take a shot. Ranches have two types of deeds, Privately deeded (land they own outright) and publicly deeded (public lands that are "conveyed" to use for a better word I guess). If you buy a tag from a LO, you are allowed to hunt both. And if you draw a tag it's basically the same depending on weapon, you are assigned a ranch yet (and there's a formula to allocate public draw hunters assigned), can hunt it's private and public deeded.
The new propsal, as I understand, separates the two. All public deeded lands, even within the quasai boundary of a ranch will be available to the public who draw within the GMU. LO's would only be given tags for privately deeded lands and they will not be good for publicly deeded. Public draw hunters would be able to hunt ALL public deeded lands within the GMU, not just the one assigned to you plus all non-conveyed public lands. It's sorta like it used to be before "tags" came around. That's the trade-off. Unlimited tags for private deeded but none for public deeded or any other. If you want to hunt on private deeded land, talk to the person. Work something out.
As Intruder mentioned, there are some acres of publicly deeded that are "landlocked" by privately deeded. And that's another story. Yet there's a ton that is not. Publicly deeded lands can be accessed by neighboring (non-conveyed) public lands like BLM, NF or by a county maintained road.
It seems G&F wants to "carve out" publicly deeded (for hunting) and make them public, available to anyone in the public draw for antelope in the GMU and not to those who purchase a tag from a LO. It thus devalues a LO tag since it's only good for privately deeded and not publicly deeded. There are a lot of ranches, who say have 40k of private deed but 60k of public deed, Therefore the "ranch" under A-Plus is 100k, and there are are paid outfitters who treat the entire 100k as their own. Am I close Intruder? By all means correct me if I'm wrong, as I often am lol!
raceguy, you pretty much have it down, and that's a nice explanation of the proposed change.
Thank you, that makes it more clear. So what would the state do w/ the previously allocated tags? Will the # of tags increase?
There is that possibility ohio, as long as management goals for the unit can be met. It could also open up alot of ranches (and draw tags) that do not currently participate in A-Plus. There are alot of LO's that are not all warm and fuzzy with being mandated to allow some random hunter whom they have never met on their private deed, so everything is closed including public deed.
edited: This, IMHO, is what presents a tremendous opportunity for more public hunting. It's been a while, but there was some data posted here that showed a good percentage of LO authorizations are never redeemed for a licence. A rancher likes to have a few freinds and the grandkids to come out so they enroll. They get 15 authorizations, hand out a few and the rest go into the garbage.
Offer all ranches the opportunity to do so, without a mandate to be assigned some random stranger on your private deed. There will probably be alot of takers, more than the number of currently enrolled properties.
Liking what I saw in their proposed changes presentation...
Are they proposing unlimited otc tags for private landowners? How will the public draw differ?