Change UNIT-WIDE elk designation in New Mexico to RANCH ONLY!

F

filinmar2

Member
Messages
22
I do not mind private landowners getting their fair share of tags for their private land. Fair numbers and percentages can be debated, negotiated, compromised. I know if I owned 500 acres of land and maintained habitat to support animals I would want the right to hunt them from time to time.

What is the BIGGEST CROCK OF S*#% is being able to use PRIVATE LAND tags on adjacent PUBLIC LAND through the UNIT-WIDE designation that the EPLUS system allows. This needs to STOP NOW.

The supposed tradeoff is that public land hunters can hunt on those private parcels and therefore it increases access to public land hunters as a tradeoff. However, I was on a recent youth hunt in 16C and the Adobe Ranch which is supposed to be open due to its Unit-Wide designation had all gates into the ranch locked except if you accessed the ranch from an entirely different unit (16E) if the gate was unlocked at all. This unit has almost no cell phone service so you can't call the Game and Fish or the ranch.

I have ran into several outfitter's and guides (Adobe Ranch, Beaverhead, Black Range) in the field and they laugh saying that public draw hunters don't stand a chance in the new system. The outfitters harvest most all the decent elk on their private land in the first 24 hrs of a hunt (after all it is their land 365 days a year and have game cameras keeping tabs year-round and should know it well) and then use their remaining tags on adjacent public land the remaining hunt days. I've seen Units (16C) that were once quality, become almost impossible to harvest a legal bull in.
Furthermore, many of these tags can be used in any 5 day span, including outside the hunt dates that restrict public land hunter. This is BULLCRAP! Let's let common sense prevail and allow private landowners their tags to use on THIER PRIVATE LAND ONLY! If we do not stop this I can guarantee hunting quality will go down for everyone, but PUBLIC LAND hunters most of all.
 
If you can't beat 'em join 'em. If it is such a sweet deal get in on it. Buy some overpriced land that generates little to no revenue, maintain it year around, pay the taxes, etc. You will enjoy hunting for a couple days each year for your work and investment. Dig deep and find a way.
 
Guess you should get out of the truck and hunt. Landowners can lock the gate but you can hunt that land. Some landowners have cattle, horses or some other kind of livestock grazing on it. I wouldn’t trust anyone else to close my gates if I had horses or cattle on it. Just like the national forest or a wilderness you can only drive so far then it’s boots on the ground. Some people don’t want to earn it, they want to Road Hunt.
 
First thing, Unit Wide tags can not be used on any 5 consecutive days, they have to coincide with a hunt code. Hunts that are outside the core can do any 5 days, but there are no Unit Wide tags outside the core anymore, they are all Ranch Only (private only)

Locked gates and making sure they are only hunting Private only is not a UW problem it is a enforcement issue. Two different issues.

Is it abused in some case, I am sure it is. I have said it before and I will say it again. Eplus and UW makes sense in some cases. Take for example a section of land that gets UW tags but now allows access to huge pieces of NF or BLM land.

To me the biggest thing is the elk herd and numbers of elk. What is best for the elk. When you have a ranch that raises 300 calf elk during June and July, but come September there are not elk on their piece, then in my mind they deserve UW tags. They just raised 300 future elk for the rest of us. Breeding grounds. Best case for the elk, not best case for you or me.
 
filinmar2 said:
Furthermore, many of these tags can be used in any 5 day span, including outside the hunt dates that restrict public land hunter.
Click to expand...

This only applies to Ranch Only. Unit wide tags are only good for the same hunt dates as the public. Here it is out of the regulations page 70:

"Unit-wide Season Dates: Unit-wide authorizations within the primary management zone correspond with an elk hunt code for the same GMU and are restricted to the same bag limit, sporting arm and hunt dates."
 
Saying you can’t hunt on a unit wide ranch because the gate is locked doesn’t mean chit !

It means you don’t want to hike in. If a landowner locks his gate and….“tells you that you can’t hunt it “….then he will lose his elk landowner vouchers. If he locks his gate and you cross the fence to hunt then that’s no problem. That’s part of the program.

What do you do when you come to the end of the road in the forest ? Is that fair that the USFS didn’t grade a road all the way through? Get out of the truck and hike into where the big bulls live.
 
5yearcoueshunter said:
This only applies to Ranch Only. Unit wide tags are only good for the same hunt dates as the public. Here it is out of the regulations page 70:

"Unit-wide Season Dates: Unit-wide authorizations within the primary management zone correspond with an elk hunt code for the same GMU and are restricted to the same bag limit, sporting arm and hunt dates."
Click to expand...
You're right, My bad on that part. Thanks for correcting that inaccuracy.
 
NM high country said:
Saying you can’t hunt on a unit wide ranch because the gate is locked doesn’t mean chit !

It means you don’t want to hike in. If a landowner locks his gate and….“tells you that you can’t hunt it “….then he will lose his elk landowner vouchers. If he locks his gate and you cross the fence to hunt then that’s no problem. That’s part of the program.

What do you do when you come to the end of the road in the forest ? Is that fair that the USFS didn’t grade a road all the way through? Get out of the truck and hike into where the big bulls live.
Click to expand...
At least with your example the forest road is closed equally to everyone, no exceptions. We are all playing by the same rules.

In your personal opinion. You are ok with landowners locking out public land hunter vehicular access under the current system? You think it's fine as is?

My honest opinion is that when the program was created it was not with the intent you describe but rather to enjoy the same level of access as the landowner during the hunt dates.

Appreciate your genuine thoughts and opinions irregardless of where you stand.
 
live4muleys said:
First thing, Unit Wide tags can not be used on any 5 consecutive days, they have to coincide with a hunt code. Hunts that are outside the core can do any 5 days, but there are no Unit Wide tags outside the core anymore, they are all Ranch Only (private only)

Locked gates and making sure they are only hunting Private only is not a UW problem it is a enforcement issue. Two different issues.

Is it abused in some case, I am sure it is. I have said it before and I will say it again. Eplus and UW makes sense in some cases. Take for example a section of land that gets UW tags but now allows access to huge pieces of NF or BLM land.

To me the biggest thing is the elk herd and numbers of elk. What is best for the elk. When you have a ranch that raises 300 calf elk during June and July, but come September there are not elk on their piece, then in my mind they deserve UW tags. They just raised 300 future elk for the rest of us. Breeding grounds. Best case for the elk, not best case for you or me.
Click to expand...
I like your take on Elk first. You're right, It is abused. It happened in 16C to me on a youth encouragement hunt. The property owner even had a map on the gate showing that it was a legit access point but was locked anyways. NO cell service in that unit.

I did call wardens when the hunt was over to clarify the rules. It is a gray area. The rules say they need to allow access and cannot interfere with hunting but do not explicitly state the terms of access or delineate number of access points or public versus property owner rights to access.

I think unit-wide should be the exception, like in the case you pointed out, rather than the rule.
 
filinmar2 said:
I like your take on Elk first. You're right, It is abused. It happened in 16C to me on a youth encouragement hunt. The property owner even had a map on the gate showing that it was a legit access point but was locked anyways. NO cell service in that unit.

I did call wardens when the hunt was over to clarify the rules. It is a gray area. The rules say they need to allow access and cannot interfere with hunting but do not explicitly state the terms of access or delineate number of access points or public versus property owner rights to access.

I think unit-wide should be the exception, like in the case you pointed out, rather than the rule.
Click to expand...
I feel your gripe dude. The landowner is supposed to grant equal access to all hunters in most cases, especially in 16 C this is not the case we watched Beaver Head outfitters drive right through a gate that was locked for us and we’re making us walk around the back of the ranch to access the elk, so I feel your pain dude
 
filinmar2 said:
However, I was on a recent youth hunt in 16C and the Adobe Ranch which is supposed to be open due to its Unit-Wide designation had all gates into the ranch locked except if you accessed the ranch from an entirely different unit (16E) if the gate was unlocked at all. This unit has almost no cell phone service so you can't call the Game and Fish or the ranch.
Click to expand...
Again, it was "open" and totally available for you to hunt. You just chose a public forum to voice your opinion which happens to be totally invalid. You simply did not like the TYPE of access from the location you chose, which sounds like the good old 2-foot type. This is also why you have time prior to the season to scout these properties (did you even know that??). If I was a GW and you would have found cell service to call me I would have laughed. And yes, the rules do state the type of access allowed in general-equitable. If they can drive, so can you. If they have a locked gate I guess it's foot or throw a bike over the fence.
 
Iowan said:
If you can't beat 'em join 'em. If it is such a sweet deal get in on it. Buy some overpriced land that generates little to no revenue, maintain it year around, pay the taxes, etc. You will enjoy hunting for a couple days each year for your work and investment. Dig deep and find a way.
Click to expand...
I like your logic and thought about it myself to be honest. I already own a sizable chunk of land that sees its fair share of deer and some elk visits throughout the year. But at the end of the day we have to stand up for what we believe in and look at the man in the mirror. I'm not for it even though I could personally benefit from the rule right now. It's the principle.
I really believe private land owners should get their fair share of tags and be able to use those tags on their own land.
In some cases, as live4muleys stated in his post, I could see how some should get unit-wide tags because of how their property contributes to the animals during other times of the year.
I don't know, maybe its my plain old stubbornness at work, but i'm not gonna ride that train. I'm going to speak up at game commission meetings and do what I can in the legislature with NMWF.
It hasn't stopped me yet from putting bulls down the past two years and boots on the ground but I'm thinking about my sons and grandson's generations... How will this affect their opportunities and access to hunting... Will it be better with or without this unit-wide designation.What is better for the elk? As live4muleys asked? I Have more questions than answers to be honest......
 
I hate it when someone gets on a forum and campaigns to take away hunting land from the DIY or outfitted hunter by claiming it’s not right that a landowner locked his gate and I had to walk or go someplace else. We all own the National Forest and that wasn’t blocked off it was private. As I’ve said before are you going to bring in 7 or 8 horses and cowboys to gather up his livestock if a hunter doesn’t close his gates and his livestock gets out? It’s not as easy as just saying…here cow, come back to your pasture.

Will it be better for your grand kids? Well when the big ranches with big bulls are off limits because people like you wanted to end the program because you had to get out and hike or turn around. Then you can complain to the commissioner’s that all big ranches should put up high fences to keep the elk off their private ground.
 
BUGLEnmIN said:
I feel your gripe dude. The landowner is supposed to grant equal access to all hunters in most cases, especially in 16 C this is not the case we watched Beaver Head outfitters drive right through a gate that was locked for us and we’re making us walk around the back of the ranch to access the elk, so I feel your pain dude
Click to expand...
Report it just like you would any other game violation. To not make the call is just as bad as not making the call for any other violation.
 
filinmar2 said:
In your personal opinion. You are ok with landowners locking out public land hunter vehicular access under the current system? You think it's fine as is?

My honest opinion is that when the program was created it was not with the intent you describe but rather to enjoy the same level of access as the landowner during the hunt dates.

Appreciate your genuine thoughts and opinions irregardless of where you stand.
Click to expand...
Yes.
Yes.
The public currently does enjoy the same level of access as the landowner within the hunt dates! If that happens to not be the case you need to document it and make a report. It’s that simple. The NMG&F dept has proven it will go the extra mile to build a case. Nothing is going to happen if sportsmen don’t take the initiative though and report violations.

In my experience with elk I know they hate pressure. Vehicular, scent, human presence, noise, the list goes on. It’s great having places like this because it weeds out the hunters who want to take the easy road.
Oh, and the NMWF is a joke of an organization. Unless you are a far left libtard and love wolves and all they bring to the table. RMEF is a far better organization if you love elk.
 
-Unitwide land opens up approximately 600k acres of private land to ALL public land hunters 1st and foremost.



-Every public land hunter has access to these ranches. Not just those with landowner connections or the ability to buy a trespass fee, or lease access.......everyone with a legal public land tag in the unit can hunt it.



-Unitwide ranches only make up 15% or so of the ranches in the programs



-The value a unitwide tag often brings is many times re-invested into the land for the elk program. For example, a unit wide tag in UnitX brings $12k. A water well in that unit cost almost $60k to put in. Eventually the landowner will be able to cover that cost and the benefit to elk and all wildlife in that area is huge and can last a very long time..NM has very little surface water in much of the state. Most people don't know how this otherwise limits populations and ranges.

The landowner's decision to put in the well, spend the money, do the work, is because the unitwide tag has value. Otherwise that water does not exist for elk....and you can hunt it too, just hop the fence.



Unitwide land opens up a lot of new access points into many peices of NF, State, BLM. Some of which is otherwise landlocked.



I think the arguement should be the exact opposite the OP is making. Encourage more land owners to go unit wide. Creating more publicly huntable lands, which in turn improves overall animal habitat and increases herd sizes and expands their range. All of this ends up equalling more elk on the landscape and more tags in the draw for the public!!



PS...I am a unit wide land owner. My participation in the EPLUS program has done way more for elk than 99.9% of people looking to draw a tag ever year, that do nothing. I've directly and indirectly opened over 1000 acres to the public. I have added elk habitat features at a significant cost to me. I as a unitwide, non-resident land owner am a massive net positive to elk and the public elk hunter in NM. As are most land owners I know in NM.
 
Last edited:
There are a few guys on here who “get it.” The people who aren’t in that category seem to always be the ones who are uneducated on the program. Solid info that BullDawg87 provided.
 
This all started when some guy gets on here and cries about a gate across a private road that is locked but the land is wide open for him to hunt. If it is a county road that is a different story it needs to be open.

There are so many great places to hunt elk in this program it isn’t funny. I know of ranches that have some of the best hunting in the unit but you need to put out the effort, get out of the truck and hike in, scout it and be in there early.

One ranch I hunt they put in about two miles of poly pipe and a tank with a float from a well so they could get water to their cattle in that pasture plus about 5 miles of new fencing. I’m sure that cost quite a bit. I put a camera on the tank and had a ton of elk hitting that new tank all night. There are far more elk using the water tank than cattle.

I know of another ranch in the program that sits in a valley full of gramma grass with P&J trees on both hill sides with a dirt tank in the bottom.You won’t find a better place to hunt elk ! But you have to hike in close to a mile. Ive never seen another hunter in there.

Then you get guys coming on here who want to road hunt and they want all this great access to be taken away because they can’t stay in the truck. That is setting a bad example for our young hunters.

If you hunt elk in New Mexico and you are complaining about it you’re not much of an outdoorsman because elk hunting in NM is some of the best in the country!
 
Booner said:
There are a few guys on here who “get it.” The people who aren’t in that category seem to always be the ones who are uneducated on the program. Solid info that BullDawg87 provided.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, there are some loud mouths trying to destroy a great resource (NMWF and BHA). Almost nobody understands how it works...and it is easy info to find. There are like 10 main rules...and most make great sense, as at the end of the day, it is private land that belongs to someone that is giving access to everyone!
NM high country said:
This all started when some guy gets on here and cries about a gate across a private road that is locked but the land is wide open for him to hunt. If it is a county road that is a different story it needs to be open.

There are so many great places to hunt elk in this program it isn’t funny. I know of ranches that have some of the best hunting in the unit but you need to put out the effort, get out of the truck and hike in, scout it and be in there early.

One ranch I hunt they put in about two miles of poly pipe and a tank with a float from a well so they could get water to their cattle in that pasture plus about 5 miles of new fencing. I’m sure that cost quite a bit. I put a camera on the tank and had a ton of elk hitting that new tank all night. There are far more elk using the water tank than cattle.

I know of another ranch in the program that sits in a valley full of gramma grass with P&J trees on both hill sides with a dirt tank in the bottom.You won’t find a better place to hunt elk ! But you have to hike in close to a mile. Ive never seen another hunter in there.

Then you get guys coming on here who want to road hunt and they want all this great access to be taken away because they can’t stay in the truck. That is setting a bad example for our young hunters.

If you hunt elk in New Mexico and you are complaining about it you’re not much of an outdoorsman because elk hunting in NM is some of the best in the country!
Click to expand...
It really is a great program! It is why elk are so strong and their ranges are expanding in NM. They need the private land water and forage to do so.

And, it actually increases options to hunt. It would be absolutely terrible to not be able to control your ability to hunt, if it was draw only....and that is all the options you had.

Now you can draw, if you don't draw, you have a way to make it happen....What if it was your last chance to elk hunt with your dad? You knew it was his last chance, neither drew....I would finance a tag if I had to, to make that happen. In NM, with EPLUS...I could do it, so can anyone else.

As a landowner, I have a significant reason to create improvements I otherwise would not, or could not afford to do..without unitwide tags.

Your experience with unitwide land is similar to mine. I have found some great spots, and some on smaller acerage too. The best water is typically on private acerage
 
Bulldawg87 said:
Unfortunately, there are some loud mouths trying to destroy a great resource (NMWF and BHA). Almost nobody understands how it works...and it is easy info to find. There are like 10 main rules...and most make great sense, as at the end of the day, it is private land that belongs to someone that is giving access to everyone!

It really is a great program! It is why elk are so strong and their ranges are expanding in NM. They need the private land water and forage to do so.

And, it actually increases options to hunt. It would be absolutely terrible to not be able to control your ability to hunt, if it was draw only....and that is all the options you had.

Now you can draw, if you don't draw, you have a way to make it happen....What if it was your last chance to elk hunt with your dad? You knew it was his last chance, neither drew....I would finance a tag if I had to, to make that happen. In NM, with EPLUS...I could do it, so can anyone else.

As a landowner, I have a significant reason to create improvements I otherwise would not, or could not afford to do..without unitwide tags.

Your experience with unitwide land is similar to mine. I have found some great spots, and some on smaller acerage too. The best water is typically on private acerage
Click to expand...
Totally agree. BHA and NMWF are both extreme left outfits. They love to cherry pick their data and push a narrative that the world might end soon. They NEVER mention the land it opens up. They also love to paint a picture of EPLUS with as broad of a brush as possible to fit their agenda. If you look at the program in detail and without a predetermined view it’s a hell of a good deal for everyone.
 
Booner said:
Report it just like you would any other game violation. To not make the call is just as bad as not making the call for any other violation.
Click to expand...
We always do man. It’s an uphill battle in most cases. Equal access is equal access period end of story. G&F don’t do a damn thing ( when we’ve called) video footage , even half a dozen hunters with video footage of private land only elk hunters hunting state land and national forest and literally running back to the private after seeing they were busted , NOTHING HAPPENED!!! The double standards keep on coming ! I’ll continue to make the calls though and in the mean Time I will be going through the gates that the outfitters are , one way or another.
 
E-Plus IMO needs a major overhaul. No one should be receiving authorizations for 2/10/20 acres, SCR needs to be eliminated. A person can easily find numerous properties that leave you scratching your head.

The equal access issue has been an issue more than once for us. Before people start popping off about “ get out and walk”, on 2 separate occasions we have walked in to find a “friend” and an outfitter accessing a UW property through a locked gate. Like mentioned above, nothing was done.

I’m not for an elimination of E-Plus, but the system is broke. I don‘t buy into the ground gained by UW authorizations, we don't have it for any other species. The 2 year unconverted rule needs to be enforced.

Obviously it‘s a hot button topic and everyone is going to have an opinion.
 
Booner said:
Again, it was "open" and totally available for you to hunt. You just chose a public forum to voice your opinion which happens to be totally invalid. You simply did not like the TYPE of access from the location you chose, which sounds like the good old 2-foot type. This is also why you have time prior to the season to scout these properties (did you even know that??). If I was a GW and you would have found cell service to call me I would have laughed. And yes, the rules do state the type of access allowed in general-equitable. If they can drive, so can you. If they have a locked gate I guess it's foot or throw a bike over the fence.
Click to expand...
Booner, everyone knows the spirit of the rule when it was created. Like you said, "
If they can drive, so can you.
Click to expand...
It sounds like you agree.

It's all good though. In my personal experience when people/governments/institutions are taking advantage or abusing systems or rights, nature has a way of balancing itself. The pendulum swings the other way and people make things right on their own. I'm sure you've done this yourself in some facet or another. We all have.That's how this country started with the forefathers saying' "enough of this BS."

On another, more productive note, I'm glad you guys are giving the landowner perspective on all this. It has helped me to see a variety of perspectives and definitely helps me weigh more of the positives of EPLUS. I can see how the financial benefit of selling elk tags for 10k can help improve infrastructure that benefits elk and their habitat. That sounds like a win for everyone who loves elk.

I harvested a decent 5x6 bull on public land this past year after gaining access through an EPLUS property to public land beyond the property. I'm appreciative and glad the landowner allowed people to drive through the property and didn't lock gates. I didn't hunt the private property at all but had to drive 7 miles through it to access the public lands beyond. From there I hiked in 6 miles into public and harvested my bull.
No way I get that bull if there was no EPLUS or also if the landowner locked the gates and didn't allow drive through access. That's not road hunting. But driving in the property was necessary just to give you guys different perspective. I'm sure the landowner could've been a jerk and locked the gates. I'm grateful he knew the spirit of the rule and did his best to honor that.
 
SLM said:
E-Plus IMO needs a major overhaul. No one should be receiving authorizations for 2/10/20 acres, SCR needs to be eliminated. A person can easily find numerous properties that leave you scratching your head.

The equal access issue has been an issue more than once for us. Before people start popping off about “ get out and walk”, on 2 separate occasions we have walked in to find a “friend” and an outfitter accessing a UW property through a locked gate. Like mentioned above, nothing was done.

I’m not for an elimination of E-Plus, but the system is broke. I don‘t buy into the ground gained by UW authorizations, we don't have it for any other species. The 2 year unconverted rule needs to be enforced.

Obviously it‘s a hot button topic and everyone is going to have an opinion.
Click to expand...
Amen. Common sense changes. Balanced.

Like I said if landowners keep abusing the system it will be to their own demise.

If they are fair and equitable like the landowner who allowed drive-thru access on the property I accessed that eventually led to my bull harvest, people will respect the eplus program more and it will help everyone long term, landowners too.
 
BUGLEnmIN said:
We always do man. It’s an uphill battle in most cases. Equal access is equal access period end of story. G&F don’t do a damn thing ( when we’ve called) video footage , even half a dozen hunters with video footage of private land only elk hunters hunting state land and national forest and literally running back to the private after seeing they were busted , NOTHING HAPPENED!!! The double standards keep on coming ! I’ll continue to make the calls though and in the mean Time I will be going through the gates that the outfitters are , one way or another.
Click to expand...
Perfectly stated. "Equal access is equal access period end of story."
 
Where is the meaningful benefit? I have personally seen these properties and they do not have the water everyone falls back to. Why does a small cabin site with a stream that runs for miles up and down stream of the property on USFS land get water points? NMDGF got rid of a lot of properties with the point system, but many more need eliminated. I wish this conversation would always be split between producers and LO’s. These are not rarities, a Quick Look will show anyone many more just like them.

IMG_6845.jpeg


IMG_6848.jpeg


IMG_6846.jpeg
 
SLM said:
Where is the meaningful benefit? I have personally seen these properties and they do not have the water everyone falls back to. Why does a small cabin site with a stream that runs for miles up and down stream of the property on USFS land get water points? NMDGF got rid of a lot of properties with the point system, but many more need eliminated. I wish this conversation would always be split between producers and LO’s. These are not rarities, a Quick Look will show anyone many more just like them.

View attachment 138452

View attachment 138453

View attachment 138454
Click to expand...
Yup! These are just a few of 100's of similar examples. On many of these properties you cannot even get the 150 yards away from a structure to take a legal shot if you wanted to.
 
filinmar2 said:
Yup! These are just a few of 100's of similar examples. On many of these properties you cannot even get the 150 yards away from a structure to take a legal shot if you wanted to.
Click to expand...
How do you play the game if you don’t know the rules??
IMG_1479.jpeg
 
Liberal hunters trying to end some great hunting. Why would anyone want ANY hunting land to go away or any kind of elk hunting opportunity just because they don’t agree with the program? Kind of like gun laws …..just a little at a time until they are gone. I imagine these hunters are Biden, MLG democrats, no common sense and will have us all on the outside looking in. Another thing, if a guy draws a unit 16c or16e elk tag and can’t kill an elk there without going on ,through a private ranch there is no help for them, could it get any easier? Two great units with plenty of elk.
 
This has all the signs of liberal BHA or NMWF. I’m sure more of their liberal, woke members will show up soon.
NMG&F knows more about what is good for NM elk and NM elk hunting than these liberal groups and they are doing a great job as you can see with the hundred’s of thousands of applicants from all over America trying for a tag or buying a LO voucher every year and the conditions of the elk herds.
 
E-plus is not perfect! It also has people taking advantage of it! BUT…. Eliminating it will likely be worse for elk and most hunters. Look at what happened to antelope. It was drastically better when hunters were assigned to ranches but everybody screamed that A-plus was terrible and so we got something worse.

Be careful what you wish for and use what’s available to your advantage without compromising law or ethics. Expect others to lack ethics and break the law, regardless of the system that is in place. Sad but true…
 
filinmar2 said:
I ain’t afraid to admit when I’m wrong or got something incorrect. That’s how I learn. Thanks for showing me that Booner!
Still won’t be taking those shots that close to houses nonetheless.
Click to expand...

There probably are a few properties still that should be dropped from the program, true. That is by far the exception...not the rule. The normal property in Eplus opens up great hunting opportunities to you, and everyone else.

It creates multiple additional ways for you to get access to elk hunting. Buy tags, trade services, own land..

It improves elk habitat. Don't condemn the entire program because a few people got in that shouldn't, or a few people break the rules.

Overall, it is a massive net positive to elk...and really all other wildlife in these areas.

On the topic of your shot within 150 yards...if you are 75 yards from a building, there is an elk at a water hole, your back is to the building and you are shooting a safe direction at that elk, why not? The landowner gave you permission to do this exact act via his choice to be involved in Unitwide Eplus.

Nothing unsafe or wrong about this action
 
NM high country said:
This has all the signs of liberal BHA or NMWF. I’m sure more of their liberal, woke members will show up soon.
NMG&F knows more about what is good for NM elk and NM elk hunting than these liberal groups and they are doing a great job as you can see with the hundred’s of thousands of applicants from all over America trying for a tag or buying a LO voucher every year and the conditions of the elk herds.
Click to expand...
When I see people on either side of the aisle throwing this generic liberal or conservative insults I know exactly why we are where we are as a country.
Don’t be a puppet to either party or their wack ass agendas. Think for yourself instead of throwing all that liberal/ conservative BS on every post.

Yup definitely support NMWF RMEF Ducks Unlimited Quail Forever NRA.
If you follow your own logic all public land is liberal crap. The idea of communal shared land? What kind of communist **** is that?

As the song goes , “Clowns to the left of me Jokers to the right”. That’s what I think of both parties. Clowns and Jokers.

I do like when you give your perspective as a landowner who benefits from EPLUS, I can Learn something new from that. I understand why you support the program and how it benefits you.

Like I said balanced, common sense changes that take into account all stakeholders needs. Most importantly elk.

I just don’t like shady landowners using discriminant access when the rule says should “be equally restrictive” if it is indeed that. It doesn’t matter though, these things have a way of correcting themselves.
 
Bulldawg87 said:
There probably are a few properties still that should be dropped from the program, true. That is by far the exception...not the rule. The normal property in Eplus opens up great hunting opportunities to you, and everyone else.

It creates multiple additional ways for you to get access to elk hunting. Buy tags, trade services, own land..

It improves elk habitat. Don't condemn the entire program because a few people got in that shouldn't, or a few people break the rules.

Overall, it is a massive net positive to elk...and really all other wildlife in these areas.

On the topic of your shot within 150 yards...if you are 75 yards from a building, there is an elk at a water hole, your back is to the building and you are shooting a safe direction at that elk, why not? The landowner gave you permission to do this exact act via his choice to be involved in Unitwide Eplus.

Nothing unsafe or wrong about this action
Click to expand...
I see you Bulldawg87. You’re right. But that takes meeting in the middle somewhere. Compromise. Listening to others. That’s something we don’t do anymore in this country. It’s I’m right you’re an idiot these days.
I agree about the shot you described. That sounds safe. But based on the sounds of you or I from these posts, we won’t be close to a house while hunting anyway… Just hypothetical I guess.
 
This subject always brings out the divide. The elimination of E-Plus that NMWF, BHA and others are pushing for is the wrong answer and it seems many would agree. I’ve asked NMWF multiple times what the plan was for all the RO authorizations and have never got a straight answer. In some units, the affect would be minimal, in others, it would be a train wreck if they were converted to the public draw. There is way more than a few properties like above that have no meaningful benefit, to say other wise is ludicrous and probably self serving.

There is a better way without throwing the baby out with the bath water.
 
SLM said:
This subject always brings out the divide. The elimination of E-Plus that NMWF, BHA and others are pushing for is the wrong answer and it seems many would agree. I’ve asked NMWF multiple times what the plan was for all the RO authorizations and have never got a straight answer. In some units, the affect would be minimal, in others, it would be a train wreck if they were converted to the public draw. There is way more than a few properties like above that have no meaningful benefit, to say other wise is ludicrous and probably self serving.

There is a better way without throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Click to expand...
A few properties need to be removed in time, for sure..but overall, it is a good program. As the comeptition for tags gets greater in the landowner pool, I think more requirement will be added and more properties will be eliminated.

And I always argue, they should further incentivize unitwide. Try and get MORE ranches to go unitwide. Allowing more access to hunting land to all! Not elminate them

Imagine if instead of trying to get rid of EPLUS and unitwide (losing 600k acres that is currently huntable by the public), they instead used it to opened up massive swaths of private land to the public instead. Get all the Ranch Only properties to go Unitwide! This would open millions of additional acres to everyone to hunt.

Example, they provide a habitat incentive, like installing new waters, for going unit wide....basically a bonus score, or tag, to encourage opening up a ranch to everyone.
 
Last edited:
Bulldawg87 said:
A few properties need to be removed in time, for sure..but overall, it is a good program. As the comeptition for tags gets greater in the landowner pool, I think more requirement will be added and more properties will be eliminated.

And I always argue, they should further incentivize unitwide. Try and get MORE ranches to go unitwide. Allowing more access to hunting land to all! Not elminate them

Imagine if instead of trying to get rid of EPLUS and unitwide (losing 600k acres that is currently huntable by the public), they instead used it to opened up massive swaths of private land to the public instead. Get all the Ranch Only properties to go Unitwide! This would open millions of additional acres to everyone to hunt.

Example, they provide a habitat incentive, like installing new waters, for going unit wide....basically a bonus score, or tag, to encourage opening up a ranch to everyone.
Click to expand...
I guess it sounds good in theory, but no way it will ever happen. The amount of money being paid for leases and/or buying properties has become staggering. Well into 6 figures being paid for leases on some places, no way the AG industry is going to allow UW authorizations across the board.

From what I’ve seen first hand, I would argue that the RO properties have more skin in the game to improve elk habitat and work to improve elk numbers on the deeded ground. A UW authorization is worth market value for the unit whether the property ever holds elk or not. A RO authorization isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on if the property does not hold elk after a couple years.

No easy answer for sure.
 
SLM said:
I guess it sounds good in theory, but no way it will ever happen. The amount of money being paid for leases and/or buying properties has become staggering. Well into 6 figures being paid for leases on some places, no way the AG industry is going to allow UW authorizations across the board.

From what I’ve seen first hand, I would argue that the RO properties have more skin in the game to improve elk habitat and work to improve elk numbers on the deeded ground. A UW authorization is worth market value for the unit whether the property ever holds elk or not. A RO authorization isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on if the property does not hold elk after a couple years.

No easy answer for sure.
Click to expand...

I'm just saying that UW is a far better argument then trying to eliminate the program. I don't personally think a LO should have to be UW, but I hope they will choose to be.

About all I personally think needs changed is some smaller properties need elimination or re-evaluated.

However, some of the very small properties are extremely valuable to elk, and the program too.

I think the best answer is, for the most part, leave it as it is!

Elk are doing extemely well in NM!
 
Last edited:
I know from first hand experience as a landowner that game and fish doesn’t hand out tags very easily for new properties trying to enroll in the system
 
Small Contributing Ranch UW ….
1327DE62-AE58-45BB-9813-F7B48987C69F.png
that has water all year and all the wallows and water holes nearby on the forest have been bone dry for a very long time. I didn’t have a tag last year but I scouted with permission anyways. Never saw another person. I would hate to see hunting land like this go away! I see plenty of deer and coyotes on that little piece too.
 
NM high country said:
Small Contributing Ranch UW ….View attachment 139502that has water all year and all the wallows and water holes nearby on the forest have been bone dry for a very long time. I didn’t have a tag last year but I scouted with permission anyways. Never saw another person. I would hate to see hunting land like this go away! I see plenty of deer and coyotes on that little piece too.
Click to expand...
Yep! Excellent example of a property that could be very small and absolutely should be in the program.

The benefit (from this land) to the public land hunter in the forest on public land, is huge...even if they never step foot on this ground, although they could.
 
SLM said:
Where is the meaningful benefit? I have personally seen these properties and they do not have the water everyone falls back to. Why does a small cabin site with a stream that runs for miles up and down stream of the property on USFS land get water points? NMDGF got rid of a lot of properties with the point system, but many more need eliminated. I wish this conversation would always be split between producers and LO’s. These are not rarities, a Quick Look will show anyone many more just like them.

View attachment 138452

View attachment 138453

View attachment 138454
Click to expand...
Ok so off topic but Peaked my intrest , what layer are you using in onx that actually shows he E plus deisgnation? I always have to go in and manually mark them . If you dont want to answer on the thread PM . Very intrested in this map layer on ox
 
Good god people. I apologize for chiming in but this is a no brainer. You can search which private land owners get a tag or two to help with the “damage” the elk do to the property. There are ample with small properties (some with 5 acres or less) that get UW tags. NM is one of the poorest states…income wise. The damage to their “infrastructure”/ fences is slim to none. 10k + bull tags is insane. I’m fine with what you chose to charge but that bull better come off of that 10 acre parcel otherwise it rules out the working families that live in the state and suffer with our economy we would love to fix. The hard working taxpayers.
It has become a rich man’s sport. Not what I grew up with. Now how to fix it? IDK. Fire the governor. It’s a start. Please!
 

Similar threads

TacoTatan
New to UNIT 15 NM First bow hunt
Replies
12
Views
599
BUGLEnmIN
BUGLEnmIN
urge2hunt
Updated Mule Deer & Bull Elk Hunts for 2024
Replies
1
Views
1k
BUGLEnmIN
BUGLEnmIN
urge2hunt
Mule Deer Hunts Available for 2024
Replies
7
Views
2k
urge2hunt
urge2hunt

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

IMG_20200305_153031915.jpg
IMG_5420.jpeg
327B1CAD-6345-4DCC-B6FA-A670B1FCD0CD.jpeg
1B0D918E-40C1-4159-AAB8-86F8EC37D752.jpeg
Screenshot_20221003-134220_Gallery.jpg
20230619_235508.jpg
ADED22BE-883B-47A1-A355-CA31A3DE4C66.jpeg
854F194A-5647-4E11-8ED2-A427458337B7.png
Young Hunter's Monster Muleys
7F9D9318-583E-4620-975D-FF2C05FE8715.png
39CF1278-093B-4351-8A40-E22D4318A741.jpeg
received_1239415256412731.jpeg

New Mexico Guides & Outfitters

H & A Outfitters

Private and public land hunts since 1992 for elk, mule deer, sheep, pronghorn, black Bear & lion hunts.

505 Outfitters

Public and private land big game hunts. Rifle, muzzleloader and archery hunts available. Free Draw Application Service!

Sierra Blanca Outfitters

Offering a wide array of hunt opportunities and putting clients in prime position to bag a trophy.

Urge 2 Hunt

Hunts in New Mexico on private ranches and remote public land in the top units. Elk vouchers available.

Mangas Outfitters

Landowner tags available! Hunt big bulls and bucks. Any season and multiple hunt units to choose from.

Back
Top Bottom