Bowsite.com

Modest proposal- private land elk use

I can see that elk use of private land is a real thing in the elk use up forage that cattle could be using. It seems obvious private land owners are entitled to fair compensation for lost forage. I am not sure how the current process of providing tags to the land owners was started, nor how the numbers of tags are allocated. I got to thinking the owners would probably much prefer cash outright, and it hit me there is a present system that might fairly determine what that amount might be.

Both the FS and BLM have grazing fees determined by animal unit month (AUM). One AUM equals the fee to graze the following for one month on federal land- one cow, or one cow/calf, or one horse, or five sheep, or five goats. These fees have been vetted by ranchers, their lobbiest and even senators/representatives as being fair to both the government and the ranchers. My proposal is that instead of tags the owners be paid cold cash by the game department, based on the numbers of elk using their land. This way the owner doesn't have to bother with trying to sell tags, or using a tag they probably don't want since they would most likely prefer to eat their home grown beef. The fee would be equal to the federal AUM, since the ranchers have vetted this as being a fair price, and elk might be eating about the same amount of forage as a cow. As of 2018, the AUM rate is $1.41. I see it as a win-win, in that regular hunters would have more tags available, and land owners could get cold cash instead of tags.

But landowners sell their permits for much more than the federal AUM and not all landowners run cattle. Without any cattle, the only real damage that MIGHT happen is a few broke fences at a few places. In that case, make payment as you say in cash for the value of one elk hunting license per elk on their land causing the damage. The burden of proof is on the landowner for compensation - if it's about damage reimbursement anyway.

Another approach is to say that if 'X' elk are using private surface during the winter months, and it is surveyed to show an average of 'X[avg]' elk and the rancher is grazing cattle on USFS and/or BLM, swap out the AUM amount for a break even on reimbursement; the cattle graze for free, a smaller amount is paid for grazing, or a smaller amount is paid back to the rancher.

I agree, there has to be something to sweeten the pot with - otherwise some may embrace the dreaded (and idiotic) "Jennings Law". People respond to incentives and act accordingly. Sometimes, though, it sure is nice to buy a PL elk tag (ranch only) and not worry about any other dingleberry hunters messing you up...

The AMU rate is for low-quality BLM/FS grazing rights. The ranches generally own the high-quality grazing land, and the water rights, which is why the elk end up on the ranch land anyway. So let's bump up that AMU rate and add in the cost of watering the wildlife. And just how much is the day-rate for fence repair?

Remember, the State legislature approves G&F's budget and there is no way LO's would let that expenditure fly. The powerful LO's like Turner are getting up to $10k for a single guided hunt. I'm not sure the average Joe who can only afford to hunt public land would like a possible increase in license fees to pay for it either.

The LO's who apply for RO tags are not the problem. Private LO's who generally have good habitat and wildlife like Turner can charge whatever they want to access their land via a trespass fee. G&F can't control that. They will be compensated either way.

G&F doesn't have the manpower to evaluate every single ranch here in NM, which is why the COER was created. From what I understand, If a ranch is inside the COER they will get tags based on their acreage. LO's basically submit a map of their ranch location and a copy of their deed. Most opt to go the UW route knowing there will be few hunters on their property and head to public lands within the unit.

I spoke with Mr. Jennings. The Jennings law was never intended to be a way to "leverage" G&F. Jennings is a sheep farmer outside of Roswell and was having a mountain lion problem killing his sheep. He wanted the legal ability to protect his sheep. He'd never seen an elk but wanted all LO's to have the ability to protect their lands from wildlife damage. Thus, we now have the Jennings law. IMHO the threat of using Jennings is thin veiled. There will be some who will, but most LO's are not going to slaughter elk on their property as it would hurt their profits eventually.

I like the current system with deer. Give LO's all the tags they want, but only for their deeded land. Let the free market decide the price based on the quality of their land and how well they manage it. G&F can then focus on developing habitat on public lands and address valid depredation problems.

Anyone remember this? Not a whole lot of compromise. Notice he didn't shoot any of the elk which he claims also damages his fence.

WRONG LINK, sorry. Here's the right one. The site won't let me edit links, only the text.

Was hoping someone would look at the math. Suppose a land owner had 50 elk using their land part time for 6 months. Per the AUM method they seem to think is fair, they would be given $423, instead of perhaps 2 or 3 or whatever tags, which seem to be worth quite a bit more. My point is the award of tags seems to outdistance the value of the forage, based on the AUM method they favor when the use is cattle on FS/BLM land. Per this change, the average joe hunter wouldn't need to see a raise in licenses as the Game and Fish folks could sell more licenses (as in, about double the numbers) to cover the forage fees. I think what should be going on is what is fair and not what provides the most income to landowners.

Eplus welfare is out of control and imo not going to change imo. Ranchers golden tickets and GNF banks in way more $ off Eplus tags by not going through the draw. I'd guess 90% plus bull tags go NR which gnf loves.

What would be interesting to know is how many LO tags are given out and never used. Especially on ranches they claim are problematic.

I felt with tags for a while and man o man those guys would throw a tag in the trash before they took $1k for it. Imagine that. The animals you are frustrated with tearing up your land present the opportunity to get rid of them and make $ and you decline cause it’s not enough?

How about $0 dollars when it’s trashed and you make no money off that tag but still complain.

Every year tons of tags get unused because people don’t want to pay $3500 - $10k, reasonably so. And the same guys are asking for more tags. The tags are just about money and no one cares about decreasing the elk population to help their land. They simply want the more tags to make more money. The elk do what they do even if you shoot 30 off your land a year it won’t stop them.

At the gnf meet here in abq they said roughly 30% of elk tags that are given to the larger ranchers never get converted in lic. I highly doubt its mb or es tags. So what gnf is attempting to do is unconverted vouchers will be taken away and entered into SCR eplus system. So yes its $$$$$ and not decreasing the herd.

Not many true ranches in the state anymore that elk tear up. Most private land is just family owned and not used to make a living from.

Vouchers not redeemed as a permit/tag tells me that, and selling them anywhere from $500 to $7500 tells me the rest of the story.

They give out LO tags to landowners with land that contributes to elk.....that is food, cover and water that elk use all year. If the shoe was on the other foot I bet everyone here that’s complaing about LO tags would want more of them . In a lot of units now days the biggest bulls are on private land and if a guy wants to hunt them they will buy a LO Ranch only tag or pay the LO to hunt his private ground. The unit I live in , about 10 years ago you could kill a big bull on the forest pretty easy but the big bulls have been hunted hard and so many shot you don’t see them much any more and I spent a lot of time in the forest/ wilderness on horseback and don’t see anything close to what I used to, but I do see some monsters on some BIG ranches. The old days are gone and now the guys with the deepest pockets get what they want !!

The biggest heartburn is the LO tags given out that are unit wide. Pretty obvious that private ground isn't sustaining elk year-round.

Question is: are the funds generated by the high sale of LO tags buying the lost graze due to elk feeding?

I buy a PL, ranch only cow tag every year just to have. It is not a working cattle ranch. It is not an active agricultural operation. Does this landowner need them? Nope. But I hope he doesn't lose it, because it is a pretty good fall back plan when we don't draw...

Register here to reply to this topic