BHA on EPLUS

Uh, Ok, I'll bite....I support the BHA and plan on becoming a life member soon. As for the abolishment of the EPLUS system, I do believe it needs a total revamp. As I understand it, 50% of the annual allocation of elk tags go to private landowners. I have friends that are private landowners, ranchers, outfitters, guides, and hunters. I understand the contribution that private landowners make to raising public elk. I know other states have similar programs, but are WAAAAYYYY less liberal with their private land tag allocations. I am generally opposed to the commercialization of wildlife, and when people start looking at a majestic bull elk as $5000-$10,000 instead of what it is, well there becomes a lot of potential for greed, corruption, unethical hunting, etc., etc. The fewer public hunter tags available, the fewer hunters we recruit into our ranks, and the more likely hunt opportunities are diminished in the future. The farther out of economical reach hunting becomes, the same result.
 
BHA was founded and headed by a Socialist Democrat. Of course they want land owner tags abolished. Land owner tags encourage land owners to improve habitat and increase herd sizes. I see nothing wrong with them.

As hunters, we need to stop supporting BHA. They actively fund ant gun movements and funnel money to the Democrat party.
 
Funny how the anti EPLUS crowd ALWAYS leaves out the half a million+ private acres (unknown landlocked public) that the program opens up to the public. Their catch phrase is “the commercialization of wildlife”, where does that line begin and end? Does it apply if you profit off an Instagram account where you hunt the state owned wildlife, produce a hunting show that showcases public land hunts, taxidermy, selling shed antlers picked up on public ground? EPLUS is a well thought out program, that was improved a few years ago. BHA needs to find a way to bring hunters together on common ground, not polarize hunters vs ranchers. Hunters won’t win.
 
If the gates arnt locked they say one thing when it comes for our hunt we don’t time to call a warden it only benefits them.
 
Personally I think the E-plus isn't perfect, but it is a good program.
It does encourage land-owners to mind the elk that use their property. Of course there is money involved, beyond pure altruism, why would they invest in wildlife if there is nothing given back to them in return?
There's more private land tags given in this state vs other states because 1) we have the e-plus program that basically acknowledges private land contributions to the elk and 2) because we have more private land that elk utilize relative to many other states (compare to AZ for example).
I would think that IF we got rid of E-plus, landowners would need some sort of compensation for dealing with the elk on their property. As the law stands, landowners don't have to deal with the elk, and that option is not good for the elk.
I would suggest tag fee increases, but anytime the subject of modest tag fee increases comes up, there is a predictable cry of "we can't afford that" and it doesn't gain any collective support.....just my opinion.
 
Jarhead said:
If the gates arnt locked they say one thing when it comes for our hunt we don’t time to call a warden it only benefits them.
Click to expand...
It baffles me why people care if the gates are locked. Park your rig and hunt it! Read the maps the F&G provide and get after it. If you are harassed video it and press charges. If you’re in the right don’t be out there walking in egg shells. The landowners are well within their right to have the gates locked, and truthfully it is probably beneficial to the hunter. Vehicle traffic only pushes elk off the property.
 
BHA needs to mind their own business. NM has enough problems as it is with its local and state gov't stupidity, it doesn't need a group of whine-baby special interest nuts throwing rocks and then running off to watch the fallout.

RO hunts should be done in the draw with a hunt code and the current allocation they are. You apply, you draw, it's up to you to broker a deal with the landowner.

If the Chupacabre Ranch gets 15 ES tags,15 bull tags, and 25 cow tags, it wouldn't be much different than hunting the Valle Vidal as far as crowding goes. Once you draw, you contact the ranch to find out what they charge based on the hunt/season you pulled. If you're afraid of what they might charge, you might think twice before applying.

If there is any truth to the "work more, earn more, spend more" mantra, it's a non-issue what they may charge.
 
BigChiefJ said:
Would the elimination of EPLUS result in more public elk tags available in the draw?

I don't think so, but that seems to be how the anti EPLUS folks are trying to sell it.
Click to expand...
Spot on. No tags would be gains and available ground would be lost. The public would lose access to numerous chunks of private land that total up to nearly the size of 16E.
 
To me the idea was all good and worked well for years. Hunters get new land to hunt and land owners got relief and a reason to let elk live on there land.

I remember first year I took my son to hunt Nm. Did not draw a tag bought a landowner tag for 2000 for unit 13 through the outfitter. that was 10 years ago. Not many tag brokers then or guys just buying all the tags for one place to sell off.

Then guys started seeing they could make money reselling tags for a huge profit. It made it easier for landowners to deal with one guy instead of dozens of people. Then after a few years landowners seen what guys were making doing this so upped there prices and the brokers did the same thing. Started this cycle of hunters paying or not hunting like before.

The system got broke by greed as so many things do. To me the fix is landowners want the tags to offset damage they should sell the tags themselves or state should make a fee then can sell them for and no more. Stop so many people from making money off the tags
 
What makes more sense is for the landowner to tally up the total damage caused by elk on their way of making a living, whether it is damaged fence or loss of pasture graze.

Game and Fish sets the price of the RO tags based on that assessment. Hunters apply full well knowing the price of the tag for that RO "hunt unit".

Hunters still have the chance to hunt and fill their tag like always, the landowner gets the cash they need to make repairs and loss of feed.

After all, that's why the landowner is selling their tags, right? For compensation of damage?...
 
This conversation is always based on true producers. They deserve a form of compensation IMO. My rub is the small hobby/recreational properties. No one should be receiving authorizations for 2,5,20 acres. The last changes helped on this, but a lot more needs to be done. I am definitely not anti E-Plus, but I am against the current form.
 
^^^ that's why EPLUS tags should have a separate price apart from a general population tag. That way the LO gets the compensation they need to set things right. There are likely a lot of hunters willing to pay the price based on the need, instead of paying an outfitter the jacked-up price after he pays the LO for the tag. Cut the outfitter ring completely out of the draw system and let the competitive market call the shots.

It's really not that daunting of a task to assign the price tag based on the Ranch code. If I knew I had to pay $500 for an EPLUS antlerless elk tag in unit 'xx' with much higher odds of drawing, I'd likely do it.
 
roadrunner said:
^^^ that's why EPLUS tags should have a separate price apart from a general population tag. That way the LO gets the compensation they need to set things right. There are likely a lot of hunters willing to pay the price based on the need, instead of paying an outfitter the jacked-up price after he pays the LO for the tag. Cut the outfitter ring completely out of the draw system and let the competitive market call the shots.

It's really not that daunting of a task to assign the price tag based on the Ranch code. If I knew I had to pay $500 for an EPLUS antlerless elk tag in unit 'xx' with much higher odds of drawing, I'd likely do it.
Click to expand...
Not every outfitter marks up the tags that they sell to their clients. The market for those tags is set by what people are willing to pay for them. As a landowner that gets tags, the number of calls that I get is crazy, mostly from hunters that didnt draw, not outfitters. The numbers that they throw out are equally crazy, but its what people are willing to pay. As an outfitter we actually, eat some of the cost that we pay for the tags instead of passing that cost to the clients, so discounting the tags rather than marking them up. Not the best business plan, I'm well aware of that, but its fair for the clients and my guides. When you start selling elk hunts for 10k it sets a level of expectation that may not be realistic in some of the units that we hunt. I can only speak to what I know and how I opperate, and I'm sure there are some outfitters that mark up the tags, I know the tag brokers damn sure do, maybe we should all roast Mark down in Albuquerque for driving the price up on all these tags. Most landowners that I know base their price off what he offers them for the tags, not the outfitters. EPLUS isn't perfect, but has a good foundation, this is a complex issue with no clearcut right or wrong. Build off of the foundation that EPLUS has and finetune the process.
 
passthrough said:
Not every outfitter marks up the tags that they sell to their clients. The market for those tags is set by what people are willing to pay for them. As a landowner that gets tags, the number of calls that I get is crazy, mostly from hunters that didnt draw, not outfitters. The numbers that they throw out are equally crazy, but its what people are willing to pay. As an outfitter we actually, eat some of the cost that we pay for the tags instead of passing that cost to the clients, so discounting the tags rather than marking them up. Not the best business plan, I'm well aware of that, but its fair for the clients and my guides. When you start selling elk hunts for 10k it sets a level of expectation that may not be realistic in some of the units that we hunt. I can only speak to what I know and how I opperate, and I'm sure there are some outfitters that mark up the tags, I know the tag brokers damn sure do, maybe we should all roast Mark down in Albuquerque for driving the price up on all these tags. Most landowners that I know base their price off what he offers them for the tags, not the outfitters. EPLUS isn't perfect, but has a good foundation, this is a complex issue with no clearcut right or wrong. Build off of the foundation that EPLUS has and finetune the process.
Click to expand...

Really wasn't addressing you or your business in particular.

The price is high because a lot of outfitters have bid up the price. Hunters now accept that as the norm. A 385" bull won't necessarily cause more damage than a 250" bull, yet the price fetch is $10k more.
 
Last edited:
BHA is trash here in NM and their leftist views. So is NMWF who also support the abolishment of e-plus. They want to basically get ALL private permits and put them in the draw! So that way you have a shot ton more hunters in the field, basically 100% more on public land. While sounds good for drawing, the quality of the hunt and experience of it will be ruined! No one like to see a crap ton of other hunters. Elk will simply run onto private land. If anyone thinks that 100% of the landowners will simply let you hunt their land is mistaken. They will sell you access instead of tags. This will range who knows how much $$$ and that’s if they let you. Don’t be fooled BHA and NMWF once supported a bill with anti hunters in the form of SB-312!
 
NMBOWHNTR27 said:
BHA is trash here in NM and their leftist views. So is NMWF who also support the abolishment of e-plus. They want to basically get ALL private permits and put them in the draw! So that way you have a shot ton more hunters in the field, basically 100% more on public land. While sounds good for drawing, the quality of the hunt and experience of it will be ruined! No one like to see a crap ton of other hunters. Elk will simply run onto private land. If anyone thinks that 100% of the landowners will simply let you hunt their land is mistaken. They will sell you access instead of tags. This will range who knows how much $$$ and that’s if they let you. Don’t be fooled BHA and NMWF once supported a bill with anti hunters in the form of SB-312!
Click to expand...
1648948451849.gif
 
I totally agree to completely disagree with BHA and NMWF!

It’s also total BS to give landowners as many landowner tags like NMDGF have done with Antelope, deer, and some elk units. I personally wish that antelope and deer were managed similar to the E-plus type model where the ranches are evaluated for habit and tags assigned through an equitable/fair tag allocation for landowners to manage their property with harvest objectives for the entire unit!

Seems like if anything EPLUS will turn into the antelope management model which is so much worse than the current system!
 
Does anyone see issues if they were to adjust the EPLUS program based on land owners acreage? I know when I check the eplus map I notice there are lot of private ranches that qualify for tags but are honestly tiny! Overall they might add up to large acreage numbers but on their own you realistically can't hunt them.

In unit 34 for instance there are a lot of small ranches <40 acres that are awarded tags in the program. There is one ranch I found that had as little as 5 acres and received a bow tag last year.
 
WoodsD9; Yeah - I saw the same thing with small properties so looked into it in depth! The current EPlus NMDGF equation takes into consideration ranch size so smaller ranches may not even get a tag every year depend on the harvest objectives of the unit. That 5 acre ranch may only get a tag every 3 or 4 year, maybe even less often.

Habitat Score (1-6) (need >4 to even qualify) times the number of acres. That total score (habitat x number of acres) is used in a lottery type draw system for ranches to draw landowner tags. The EPlus equation helps balance ranches with great habitat with large land size ranches with poor habitat. Also probably helps incentives landowners to improve the elk habit by doing things like installing more water tanks. NMDGF takes the habitat scoring very serious for the best elk units with ranches needing features like dedicate water, cover, or feed on their property. NMDGF can even sends officers out to tour the property to evaluate the habitat score.
 
WoodsD9 said:
Does anyone see issues if they were to adjust the EPLUS program based on land owners acreage? I know when I check the eplus map I notice there are lot of private ranches that qualify for tags but are honestly tiny! Overall they might add up to large acreage numbers but on their own you realistically can't hunt them.

In unit 34 for instance there are a lot of small ranches <40 acres that are awarded tags in the program. There is one ranch I found that had as little as 5 acres and received a bow tag last year.
Click to expand...
I’ve had some great hunts on <20 acre EPLUS properties. It’s all about quality, and from what I have observed the smaller properties are actually pretty overlooked. They are the first ones I check out with a tag in hand.
 
The Eplus system is good, in standard. If the laws of it were enforced, it would be a lot better than it is. There are a lot of land owners who receive unit wide tags, who do not open there land to public hunters, which is a requirement. If they enforced the actual laws, and made a couple minor tweaks, it would be great.
 
WoodsD9 said:
Does anyone see issues if they were to adjust the EPLUS program based on land owners acreage? I know when I check the eplus map I notice there are lot of private ranches that qualify for tags but are honestly tiny! Overall they might add up to large acreage numbers but on their own you realistically can't hunt them.

In unit 34 for instance there are a lot of small ranches <40 acres that are awarded tags in the program. There is one ranch I found that had as little as 5 acres and received a bow tag last year.
Click to expand...
Small ranches require time and money also. Small ranches usually have limited assets to draw on, basically mom and pop places that have to repair fence, tend herd, water tank repairs and everything else you can think of when it comes to ranching without hired hand help. I had a small ranch in Alamogordo for 20 years, it was a lot of work, time consuming and fun. If the animals belong to the State then the State should compensate for loses in some manner.
 
I'm ok with E-Plus when it comes to private land tags, I just have a problem with UW. Never has sat well with me that it might take me decades to draw a coveted tag and then I'm hunting next to someone on public land that was just able to purchase it.

My thoughts are if your property is in an Primary Elk unit, you have habitat for elk and you show evidence that elk have been using it and causing damage, then you should either choose to get a tag(s) to hunt that property or something monetary from G&F. If they choose the tag option, I'm ok with that tag having a longer season or combining multiple seasons to fill the tag with the understanding that an elk might not be present for a 5 day only season.

I say all this was the caveat that hunters, landowners, ranchers at the end of the day all need to be on the same team. Too many people that want to take hunting away completely, so we shouldn't get divided.

Travis
 
IMO, the E-Plus conversation gets convoluted with the word “ranch”. True producing properties need to be separated from hobby/vacation properties in the conversation. A guy from Fairbanks AK that buys 10 acres to be eligible in SCR can’t be in the same conversation as the producer that has 10,000 acres that has permanent water, feed etc. The point system helped, but there are still a bunch of properties that have gamed the system. No one with 50 acres in the middle of a sage brush flat surrounded by BLM should be receiving authorizations IMO. An 11 acre property that has river front property should not receive water points when the river runs for miles up and downstream on public ground. I think most can’t deny that true ranches play a vital role in wildlife health and should be rewarded/compensated, but these small hobby/vacation properties need to go IMO.
 
I reckon it’s all relevant to where and who you are. A guy who has 100 million dollars and loses 50 million dollars still has 50 million dollars. A guy who has 100 dollars and loses 50 dollars is another story.
 
Bigfoot 1 said:
I reckon it’s all relevant to where and who you are. A guy who has 100 million dollars and loses 50 million dollars still has 50 million dollars. A guy who has 100 dollars and loses 50 dollars is another story.
Click to expand...
To me, it's not about how much money is lost. I think, a rancher should have to prove the losses are due to wildlife, and then get a set amount, or set amount of tags market value to the losses. Not, hey here's 100 tags, at 10,000 a pop. Getting a million dollars to repair 20-30,000 worth of damage by wild animals. Those are just numbers, not actual circumstances. But, I do believe the rancher or farmer should have to prove the losses are due to wildlife, and not just normal wear and tear, or their animals. To say that it is a hard business and they deserve to be compensated for the animals living on their property and travelling through their property doesn't cut it for me. It is a tough business, but they knew that going in. It should not be a supplement to their income, just to be a supplement to their income. The water sources that they pool for their animals are public property as well. These animals belonged on the land before they got the land. Should have a yearly evaluation, and damages caused by wildlife should be compensated. Not giving them out just because they have the land. We all know most landowners do not improve their property for the wildlife, it is for their cattle. Of which, they get an extremely cheap rate to house them, feed them and water them from public property as well.

We see how they handled the situation when they were allowed to kill animals on their property, shot and killed them, just to pile them up. They don't care about the wildlife(again, for the most part, not all), only about their personal gain.
 
Wish we could send and keep BHA up north where they started and belong. They are a terrible partner for hunters, not good for hunting and not good for the 2nd amendment. E-Plus maybe need some minor tweaks but the alternative is terrible. Can’t believe any hunters fund BHA with what is known about them.
 
My neighbors say the elk eat about 40% of the alfalfa growing in their fields. They all get EPlus RO elk authorizations, in this Gmu, by negotiation with NMGF.

If NM does away with EPlus, I can’t imagine, with all the variables involved with weather, irrigation flow, alfalfa market value, equipment, labor, fuel, tax, environmental regulations, etc how to come up with FAIR compensation on each ranch, every year.
 
wyoflythrower said:
Wish we could send and keep BHA up north where they started and belong. They are a terrible partner for hunters, not good for hunting and not good for the 2nd amendment. E-Plus maybe need some minor tweaks but the alternative is terrible. Can’t believe any hunters fund BHA with what is known about them.
Click to expand...
It’s funny BHA never mentions the nearly 600,000 private land acres EPLUS opens up to the public, and an unknown number of landlocked public acres.
 
Dumdum said:
My neighbors say the elk eat about 40% of the alfalfa growing in their fields. They all get EPlus RO elk authorizations, in this Gmu, by negotiation with NMGF.

If NM does away with EPlus, I can’t imagine, with all the variables involved with weather, irrigation flow, alfalfa market value, equipment, labor, fuel, tax, environmental regulations, etc how to come up with FAIR compensation on each ranch, every year.
Click to expand...
Those variables shouldn't matter.... Go by what price alfalfa is, and pay it that way. Let me ask you this.... If that alfalfa isn't eaten, do they add those variables into selling it, or do they get fair market value for it???? That's right, fair market value..... so why should the state have to pay above fair market value for it?
 
Last edited:
Booner said:
It’s open. Might not be able to drive in there, but the maps are available and you can hunt it without question just as if it was BLM or USFS. Might have a locked gate, but that doesn’t mean you can’t hunt it.
Click to expand...
Have you tried that before? Because I've seen the sheriff called for trespassing, and told a game officer has to come out. Only for them to not come. Or say they will take care of it. And never do. Have had landowners pull guns on me on BLM before, just because they are leasing it, and nothing is done about it. A lot of those ranches start in the lowlands, would take a twenty mile hike to get into elk country on a few of them. Shouldn't have to when you are allowed to use their roads as well. But hey, that's ok for them to do that right? Be paid above and beyond for the game "damaging" their property, with one stipulation. Allowing public access, and they don't. We should just roll over and be ok with that?
 
mossback50cal said:
Have you tried that before? Because I've seen the sheriff called for trespassing, and told a game officer has to come out. Only for them to not come. Or say they will take care of it. And never do. Have had landowners pull guns on me on BLM before, just because they are leasing it, and nothing is done about it. A lot of those ranches start in the lowlands, would take a twenty mile hike to get into elk country on a few of them. Shouldn't have to when you are allowed to use their roads as well. But hey, that's ok for them to do that right? Be paid above and beyond for the game "damaging" their property, with one stipulation. Allowing public access, and they don't. We should just roll over and be ok with that?
Click to expand...
Yes, I’ve rolled right up to a locked gate walked in through checkerboarded state and EPLUS, dumped a nice bull, and packed him out. You can use their roads all day, who said you have to be allowed to drive on them? A bike/Ebike, your boots, or a horse works great for that too. I prefer a locked gate, keeps out the road hunters anyways and the elk aren’t as spooked. The landowners in the program know they can’t restrict you being on that land. Turn on your phone and record any illegal activity just as you would a poacher if they try to kick you off. Tell them you will call the EPLUS manager and file a complaint. It works both ways. What I can’t believe is that guys ***** foot around and let a locked gate stop them from hunting property they clearly have every right to hunt. Get after it and bring your meat bags and frame pack.
 
mossback50cal said:
Those variables shouldn't matter.... Go by what price alfalfa is, and pay it that way. Let me ask you this.... If that alfalfa isn't eaten, do they add those variables into selling it, or do they get fair market value for it???? That's right, fair market value..... so why should the state have to pay above fair market value for it?
Click to expand...
A lot of alfalfa is transported nation wide. Gasoline prices help dictate fair market value. I’m in farm and ranch land and I don’t see any alfalfa going to waste.
 
mossback50cal said:
Have you tried that before? Because I've seen the sheriff called for trespassing, and told a game officer has to come out. Only for them to not come. Or say they will take care of it. And never do. Have had landowners pull guns on me on BLM before, just because they are leasing it, and nothing is done about it. A lot of those ranches start in the lowlands, would take a twenty mile hike to get into elk country on a few of them. Shouldn't have to when you are allowed to use their roads as well. But hey, that's ok for them to do that right? Be paid above and beyond for the game "damaging" their property, with one stipulation. Allowing public access, and they don't. We should just roll over and be ok with that?
Click to expand...
We hunt deer in the Lincoln National Forest in NM. Over 20 years ago the National Forest leased “our” deer country to a rancher. The rancher proceeded to fence everything off with the assistance from the Government. They put a walk gate in the fence line. We hated it at first as we camped at the gate and then hiked in 3 miles to where we started to hunt. Eventually we figured out that MOST people who hunt this area won’t hike back in there. Our success rate was through the roof and we still harvest deer back there. As I get older I again hate it as it gets harder on the body. It’s like everything else in life, if you put in the work you will be rewarded most of the time. If it was easy all the girls would be doing it.

As far as trespassing goes, you can only be charged with trespassing if the land is posted, you knowingly disregarded the signs and you refuse to leave when asked to leave.
 
Dumdum said:
My neighbors say the elk eat about 40% of the alfalfa growing in thei fields. They all get EPlus RO elk authorizations, in this Gmu, by negotiation with NMGF.

If NM does away with EPlus, I can’t imagine, with all the variables involved with weather, irrigation flow, alfalfa market value, equipment, labor, fuel, tax, environmental regulations, etc how to come up with FAIR compensation on each ranch, every year
Click to expand...
If the neighbors cattle get on the alfalfa and eat it to the ground, he has no claim unless the property is properly fenced, then he can trespass the cattle with the sheriff or Livestock Board. Why should it not be the same for wildlife if said owner truly doesn’t want them? Obviously we’re talking a different type fencing but the state will supply the material free. This to me has always been a hole in the argument. Seems this argument always goes to depredation, but E-Plus is not depredation based. definitely don’t want E-Plus eliminated, but it does need overhauled IMO.
 
Booner said:
Yes, I’ve rolled right up to a locked gate walked in through checkerboarded state and EPLUS, dumped a nice bull, and packed him out. You can use their roads all day, who said you have to be allowed to drive on them? A bike/Ebike, your boots, or a horse works great for that too. I prefer a locked gate, keeps out the road hunters anyways and the elk aren’t as spooked. The landowners in the program know they can’t restrict you being on that land. Turn on your phone and record any illegal activity just as you would a poacher if they try to kick you off. Tell them you will call the EPLUS manager and file a complaint. It works both ways. What I can’t believe is that guys ***** foot around and let a locked gate stop them from hunting property they clearly have every right to hunt. Get after it and bring your meat bags and frame pack.
Click to expand...
The whole point is they are not allowed to lock the gate. That is breaking the law. THAT IS THE ISSUE.
 
mossback50cal said:
No, they must provide all access to their land. It does not state they only have to allow foot traffic. It states full access.
Click to expand...
They have to allow equal access, not unrestricted access. If the person who bought the authorization, an outfitter, or any other hunter has motorized access to roads, all have motorized access. If they don’t allow any motorized access, all gates can be locked.
 
mossback50cal said:
No, they must provide all access to their land. It does not state they only have to allow foot traffic. It states full access.
Click to expand...
False.
They have to provide EQUAL access. So, if they aren’t driving back there it looks like you aren’t either if the gate is locked. If it’s unlocked you can drive it.
You have misinterpreted the regulations, or haven’t read them.

Here is the reference:
By signing the unit-wide option I hereby agree that: Unit-wide elk licenses obtained with landowner authorizations will be valid
within the entire GMU for use on all private unit-wide ranches, other private land with written permission and any legally -
accessible public lands where hunting is allowed. This Agreement grants any legally licensed elk hunters, their companions
and/or guides and outfitters, the right to free and unrestricted access to the entire ranch, without charge or other
consideration, for the purpose of hunting elk during their licensed hunt dates, including scouting up to two days immediately
preceding the start of their hunt. Landowners and their employees may not interfere with elk hunters while on the ranch and
elk hunters are not required to notify landowners or their employees before entering the ranch. All elk hunters legally
accessing the property pursuant to this unit-wide agreement have permission to discharge firearms, crossbows, bows or
muzzleloaders, only for the purpose of shooting elk, including within 150 yards of a dwelling or building as described in
subsection 4 of section A of 30-7-4 NMSA 1978, Negligent use of a deadly weapon. All other sections and subsections of
30-7-4 NMSA 1978 remain in effect and apply to all hunters. Vehicular access may be restricted on the ranch however; it
must be equally restricted to all elk hunters, including hunters holding a license purchased with authorizations issued to this
ranch. No elk hunter, including hunters holding a license purchased with authorizations issued to this ranch, may drive off-
road on a unit-wide ranch except to retrieve legally harvested elk with permission of the landowner. Any violation of this
agreement may result in the removal of this property from the EPLUS program for up to three years. I also agree to and
understand that all unit-wide ranch boundaries will be available to the public on the Department website
 
Last edited:
mossback50cal said:
I think you need to look into the laws. The property does not have to be posted. It is our responsibility to know what is private and what is public.... And the hiking back in isn't the issue. It is the principle.
Click to expand...
With all due respect sir, I enforced laws for 30 years.
NM Statutes, Chapter 30-Criminal Offenses, Article 14-Trespass, Section 30-14-1 Criminal Trespass.

A. Criminal trespass consists of knowingly entering or remaining upon posted private property without possessing written permission from the owner or person in control of the land.

You can be cited for trespassing on unposted land also if you KNOW that consent to enter or remain has been denied.

This is the law where I am at.
 
SLM said:
They have to allow equal access, not unrestricted access. If the person who bought the authorization, an outfitter, or any other hunter has motorized access to roads, all have motorized access. If they don’t allow any motorized access, all gates can be locked.
Click to expand...
Exactly! The rancher cannot operate a motor vehicle on the fenced land we hunt during hunting season. The Game Warden is the only one allowed motorized access, baring an emergency.
 
Bigfoot 1 said:
With all due respect sir, I enforced laws for 30 years.
NM Statutes, Chapter 30-Criminal Offenses, Article 14-Trespass, Section 30-14-1 Criminal Trespass.

A. Criminal trespass consists of knowingly entering or remaining upon posted private property without possessing written permission from the owner or person in control of the land.

You can be cited for trespassing on unposted land also if you KNOW that consent to enter or remain has been denied.

This is the law where I am at.
Click to expand...
You are correct. I guess everyone telling us it is our responsibility to know the land we are on is wrong.
 
Booner said:
False.
They have to provide EQUAL access. So, if they aren’t driving back there it looks like you aren’t either if the gate is locked. If it’s unlocked you can drive it.
You have misinterpreted the regulations, or haven’t read them.

Here is the reference:
By signing the unit-wide option I hereby agree that: Unit-wide elk licenses obtained with landowner authorizations will be valid
within the entire GMU for use on all private unit-wide ranches, other private land with written permission and any legally -
accessible public lands where hunting is allowed. This Agreement grants any legally licensed elk hunters, their companions
and/or guides and outfitters, the right to free and unrestricted access to the entire ranch, without charge or other
consideration, for the purpose of hunting elk during their licensed hunt dates, including scouting up to two days immediately
preceding the start of their hunt. Landowners and their employees may not interfere with elk hunters while on the ranch and
elk hunters are not required to notify landowners or their employees before entering the ranch. All elk hunters legally
accessing the property pursuant to this unit-wide agreement have permission to discharge firearms, crossbows, bows or
muzzleloaders, only for the purpose of shooting elk, including within 150 yards of a dwelling or building as described in
subsection 4 of section A of 30-7-4 NMSA 1978, Negligent use of a deadly weapon. All other sections and subsections of
30-7-4 NMSA 1978 remain in effect and apply to all hunters. Vehicular access may be restricted on the ranch however; it
must be equally restricted to all elk hunters, including hunters holding a license purchased with authorizations issued to this
ranch. No elk hunter, including hunters holding a license purchased with authorizations issued to this ranch, may drive off-
road on a unit-wide ranch except to retrieve legally harvested elk with permission of the landowner. Any violation of this
agreement may result in the removal of this property from the EPLUS program for up to three years. I also agree to and
understand that all unit-wide ranch boundaries will be available to the public on the Department website
Click to expand...
They have to provide the same access they have. The ones I have seen have large camper cities on their property during the hunt. Or, allows them to stay on there property during the hunt. Which, in turn, would allow the public access to their property via roads. I know of specific ones who allow their hunters to camp on their property, which holds access to forest land behind it, while keeping access off for public. I have specifically called the game department on them. Being told "It is a known issue, and we will look into it and take action", only to see the same thing the next year. There are plenty of people who see this every year across the state. Nothing is done about it, and I do not think anything will ever be done about it.
 
mossback50cal said:
They have to provide the same access they have. The ones I have seen have large camper cities on their property during the hunt. Or, allows them to stay on there property during the hunt. Which, in turn, would allow the public access to their property via roads. I know of specific ones who allow their hunters to camp on their property, which holds access to forest land behind it, while keeping access off for public. I have specifically called the game department on them. Being told "It is a known issue, and we will look into it and take action", only to see the same thing the next year. There are plenty of people who see this every year across the state. Nothing is done about it, and I do not think anything will ever be done about it.
Click to expand...
Wait, you said “full access” a bit ago, now you are stating what we have been saying all along. So which is it?
Just like any complaint if you don’t bring proof to the table for the Department you may as well not even call. Your word against theirs. Video it and demand action. Sounds like you just called to inform them of a violation without substantiating the claim. Name the unit and the landowner publicly. No reason not to…go.
 
Any property that receives an e plus LO tag must have something on their land that benefits elk !! It is about meaningful benefit for elk not elk damage. If a landowner gets tags and his gates are locked so animals of his can’t get out you can still cross his fence and go. I know of so many great places to hunt elk on e plus land that never sees another Hunter but is full of elk. I have a neighbor who has been receiving one LO tag ever since the start of the program he has 100 acres of pine forest and pasture in a place that once the pressure starts in the national forest many, many elk stay hold up on his little property with absolutely no one ever hunting it except a couple locals that know what a honey hole it is…..big bulls and pleanty of cows, wide open to the public but it’s off the trail and not right next to the forest. Full of turkeys too. e plus, if you know what you’re doing is a great elk hunting benefit to elk hunters !
 
Booner said:
Wait, you said “full access” a bit ago, now you are stating what we have been saying all along. So which is it?
Just like any complaint if you don’t bring proof to the table for the Department you may as well not even call. Your word against theirs. Video it and demand action. Sounds like you just called to inform them of a violation without substantiating the claim. Name the unit and the landowner publicly. No reason not to…go.
Click to expand...
Just removed this post. No point in arguing. The reason I stopped coming on this site, and it has gone downhill. This place used to full of advice and wisdom. Now it's full of this. What a wasted site.

Have a good day and good luck on the draw to everyone.
 
Last edited:
Booner said:
False.
They have to provide EQUAL access. So, if they aren’t driving back there it looks like you aren’t either if the gate is locked. If it’s unlocked you can drive it.
You have misinterpreted the regulations, or haven’t read them.

Here is the reference:
By signing the unit-wide option I hereby agree that: Unit-wide elk licenses obtained with landowner authorizations will be valid
within the entire GMU for use on all private unit-wide ranches, other private land with written permission and any legally -
accessible public lands where hunting is allowed. This Agreement grants any legally licensed elk hunters, their companions
and/or guides and outfitters, the right to free and unrestricted access to the entire ranch, without charge or other
consideration, for the purpose of hunting elk during their licensed hunt dates, including scouting up to two days immediately
preceding the start of their hunt. Landowners and their employees may not interfere with elk hunters while on the ranch and
elk hunters are not required to notify landowners or their employees before entering the ranch. All elk hunters legally
accessing the property pursuant to this unit-wide agreement have permission to discharge firearms, crossbows, bows or
muzzleloaders, only for the purpose of shooting elk, including within 150 yards of a dwelling or building as described in
subsection 4 of section A of 30-7-4 NMSA 1978, Negligent use of a deadly weapon. All other sections and subsections of
30-7-4 NMSA 1978 remain in effect and apply to all hunters. Vehicular access may be restricted on the ranch however; it
must be equally restricted to all elk hunters, including hunters holding a license purchased with authorizations issued to this
ranch. No elk hunter, including hunters holding a license purchased with authorizations issued to this ranch, may drive off-
road on a unit-wide ranch except to retrieve legally harvested elk with permission of the landowner. Any violation of this
agreement may result in the removal of this property from the EPLUS program for up to three years. I also agree to and
understand that all unit-wide ranch boundaries will be available to the public on the Department website
Click to expand...

Understand that an agreement signed by the land owner isn't necessarily a publicly known document as regulation. Hunter's go by what is published in the annual game regulations.

Unless this agreement is accessible by a public resource, namely, game and fish's webpage or in the published regulations, it isn't a "regulation" that hunters must follow. It is a condition the landowner must follow in consideration of an elk voucher provided by the Department of Game and Fish for the management of wildlife and compensation of any damage that has, or may occur.

So to say there is a misinterpretation, or the lack of reading a regulation, is a misnomer...
 
roadrunner said:
Understand that an agreement signed by the land owner isn't necessarily a publicly known document as regulation. Hunter's go by what is published in the annual game regulations.

Unless this agreement is accessible by a public resource, namely, game and fish's webpage or in the published regulations, it isn't a "regulation" that hunters must follow. It is a condition the landowner must follow in consideration of an elk voucher provided by the Department of Game and Fish for the management of wildlife and compensation of any damage that has, or may occur.

So to say there is a misinterpretation, or the lack of reading a regulation, is a misnomer...
Click to expand...
Could the G&F do a better job and put that info in the regs book, sure. But it is a publicly available document on the G&F website that anyone can read if they choose to do so. It isn’t like every landowner has different terms and the process is a big mystery. The agreements are all the same and are absolutely available.

There is no misnomer, MB50 didn’t search out and read the info or maybe he dreamed up his own conclusion on how he felt the program should operate. Regardless, he could have just admitted he didn’t know or didn’t actually look for the info. Instead he chose to be upset with me over his ignorance and has decided to leave. The site is full of wisdom, don’t be mad because we gave you the correct information. Be mad at yourself for not being able to accept what is accurate.
 
mossback50cal said:
Just removed this post. No point in arguing. The reason I stopped coming on this site, and it has gone downhill. This place used to full of advice and wisdom. Now it's full of this. What a wasted site.

Have a good day and good luck on the draw to everyone.
Click to expand...
So…you don’t want to name the unit or the landowner then??
Why would you not want to share that information?
 
Booner said:
Could the G&F do a better job and put that info in the regs book, sure. But it is a publicly available document on the G&F website that anyone can read if they choose to do so. It isn’t like every landowner has different terms and the process is a big mystery. The agreements are all the same and are absolutely available.

There is no misnomer, MB50 didn’t search out and read the info or maybe he dreamed up his own conclusion on how he felt the program should operate. Regardless, he could have just admitted he didn’t know or didn’t actually look for the info. Instead he chose to be upset with me over his ignorance and has decided to leave. The site is full of wisdom, don’t be mad because we gave you the correct information. Be mad at yourself for not being able to accept what is accurate.
Click to expand...

A contract is not a regulation. Don't confuse the two...
 
roadrunner said:
Exactly. Here we go...

A binding agreement is not a regulation. Don't confuse the two.
Click to expand...
Just like the discussion we had regarding shooting an elk in someone’s front yard who has the property enrolled in a UW EPLUS agreement, I’m not confused. When the landowner signs that contract they have to abide by the terms. Regardless of how hard you have to look to find the contract on a web site it is binding.
 
Booner said:
Just like the discussion we had regarding shooting an elk in someone’s front yard who has the property enrolled in a UW EPLUS agreement, I’m not confused. When the landowner signs that contract they have to abide by the terms. Regardless of how hard you have to look to find the contract on a web site it is binding.
Click to expand...

Okay.
 
Booner said:
So…you don’t want to name the unit or the landowner then??
Why would you not want to share that information?
Click to expand...
I already explained to you why. A lot of people on this site and many others have complained about these things. Like I stated, I am no longer going to argue with you. You are all knowing and know every single landowner follows through with their end of it! If only I had your knowledge.
 
mossback50cal said:
I already explained to you why. A lot of people on this site and many others have complained about these things. Like I stated, I am no longer going to argue with you. You are all knowing and know every single landowner follows through with their end of it! If only I had your knowledge.
Click to expand...
If you explained why you didn’t want to share that info I missed it. I’m sure there are some dirtbag landowners out there just like there are dirtbag hunters. No reason to not shine a spotlight on both.
I’m not “all knowing” but do have a solid understanding of the program and am not afraid to try and set the record straight when I read incorrect info such as “The whole point is they are not allowed to lock the gate. That is breaking the law. THAT IS THE ISSUE.” Isn’t that the point of this forum?
I probably could be more tactful in pointing out false information.
Good luck in the draw.
 
Booner said:
If you explained why you didn’t want to share that info I missed it. I’m sure there are some dirtbag landowners out there just like there are dirtbag hunters. No reason to not shine a spotlight on both.
I’m not “all knowing” but do have a solid understanding of the program and am not afraid to try and set the record straight when I read incorrect info such as “The whole point is they are not allowed to lock the gate. That is breaking the law. THAT IS THE ISSUE.” Isn’t that the point of this forum?
I probably could be more tactful in pointing out false information.
Good luck in the draw.
Click to expand...
Im going by my experience. When they have hunters on their property and lock the gates. Not by anyone else's. And, I am not putting names out there with how easy it is to be sued now a days. There are plenty of dirtbag hunters and landowners. The difference is dirtbag hunters can be dealt with by officers in the field. Landowners cannot. Takes courtrooms and lawyers for that, which the department nor the state are going to invest in as it does not benefit them in any way. That is the point roadrunner is trying to make, I believe. I'm all for busting both sets of dirtbags, but one side doesn't seem to get any reprocussions for their actions.
 
mossback50cal said:
They have to provide the same access they have. The ones I have seen have large camper cities on their property during the hunt. Or, allows them to stay on there property during the hunt. Which, in turn, would allow the public access to their property via roads. I know of specific ones who allow their hunters to camp on their property, which holds access to forest land behind it, while keeping access off for public. I have specifically called the game department on them. Being told "It is a known issue, and we will look into it and take action", only to see the same thing the next year. There are plenty of people who see this every year across the state. Nothing is done about it, and I do not think anything will ever be done about it.
Click to expand...
This happens all to often!
 
BUGLEnmIN said:
This happens all to often!
Click to expand...
One is too many, just like poaching. But if folks don’t give the G&F the proof necessary to boot ‘em out of the program nothing can be done. Calling and making a complaint without providing proof is a notch above doing almost nothing.
 
When they tell you it is a known issue, that they are investigating it, what else should we do? The problem is what I already mentioned, this one isn't settled in the field. It's settled in courts, and the state does not want to invest in something that will bring no profit to them. I have called G&F on properties, even met a warden at one, and was told there is little they can do in the field about it.
 
mossback50cal said:
When they tell you it is a known issue, that they are investigating it, what else should we do? The problem is what I already mentioned, this one isn't settled in the field. It's settled in courts, and the state does not want to invest in something that will bring no profit to them. I have called G&F on properties, even met a warden at one, and was told there is little they can do in the field about it.
Click to expand...
The NM G&F has proven that they will spend a great deal of time on a case, look at the guy who poaches that mule deer and they had a warden stake out the head 24/7 for well north of a month, I think closer to two. What else can you do?…If you feel your case is strong enough bring it up to the commission, send an email to the director, take it to the next level, talk to the supervisor of the warden. All that info is publicly available. Be a pain in the ass. The G&F law enforcement branch isn’t profit motivated, they will spend what it takes to enforce the law.
 
I think another avenue to pursue would how many LO tags are allocated and how many are actually used. So many ranchers complain about damage to their fields, fences and land and for simple math purposes receive 20 cow tags and 10 bull tags and only activated 5 of each. Shouldn’t that matter? I mean if you want compensation for destruction but choose to make the troubles some elk trophy or nothing and only used 10 of your 30 tags that’s a bit of a contradiction isn’t it?

I bring this up for the fact that back years ago I dealt with fair amount of LO who would tell me (I’d rather throw the tag away than sell it for $1k) so is it really about compensation?
$1k is better than nothing right? You received 30 tags to recoup money for damage and only used 10 of them I guess they didn’t damage much land now did they?

And than you have places like the Floyd Lee who gets find millions but continues to receive tags despite multiple issues with hunter harassment, claiming public land is private flying and hearding elk but continues to get tags. Cut his ass off period. Why allow so much to happen and just continue to happen. You don’t get tags there’s no issues and he may learn a lesson.


Same problem in this situation as all the world. No accountability on things anymore. I would like to know how many LO tags are allocated and how many are activated. And if you get X amount of tags and only use half and complain about damages is that fair since your not taking full advantage of your opportunity to recuperate money? Just my view and a good starting point with our making tremendous change. Weed out the frauds.
 
^^^ or, how many tags get sold and are not filled? Was the LO using the money to replace/repair damages, or did they just go buy a new 3/4 diesel and pay cash?

Is Game and Fish evaluating the harvest data and adjusting the tags accordingly. 30 tags issued, but only 20 of them are filled...
 
Vehicles, tractors, ATV”’s, sprinkler systems, tools and such are all part of business expenses when running a farm and ranch. You need equipment to repair things.
 
But, I don't believe it's the state's responsibility to help you keep your farm or ranch up. It is yours. Those tags shouldn't be used for things the farmer or rancher should be responsible IMO. Should be used to repair damages, and any extra to improving the land for wildlife. Because that is why they are getting the tags, because of the wildlife. Not because they own a ranch and need help.
 
mossback50cal said:
But, I don't believe it's the state's responsibility to help you keep your farm or ranch up. It is yours. Those tags shouldn't be used for things the farmer or rancher should be responsible IMO. Should be used to repair damages, and any extra to improving the land for wildlife. Because that is why they are getting the tags, because of the wildlife. Not because they own a ranch and need help.
Click to expand...

I agree. But how often is the money used for other stuff than the intended purpose, and then the LO cries about all the damage done they can't repair/recover from?

I don't know the complete answer, but I do know for a [limited] fact some landowners do not use the money for its intended purpose...

And then as I posted earlier, if some of the tags are going unfilled, is it because not that many elk are on the property, or, are hunters too picky and not doing their part with Game and Fish to manage populations?
 
mossback50cal said:
But, I don't believe it's the state's responsibility to help you keep your farm or ranch up. It is yours. Those tags shouldn't be used for things the farmer or rancher should be responsible IMO. Should be used to repair damages, and any extra to improving the land for wildlife. Because that is why they are getting the tags, because of the wildlife. Not because they own a ranch and need help.
Click to expand...
You can’t repair damages or improve the land without the things that I mentioned.
 
roadrunner said:
I agree. But how often is the money used for other stuff than the intended purpose, and then the LO cries about all the damage done they can't repair/recover from?

I don't know the complete answer, but I do know for a [limited] fact some landowners do not use the money for its intended purpose...

And then as I posted earlier, if some of the tags are going unfilled, is it because not that many elk are on the property, or, are hunters too picky and not doing their part with Game and Fish to manage populations?
Click to expand...

I have a buddy who owns a couple giant ranches. They smash a bunch of cows, but only kill a hand full of bulls a year to keep quality. Its not an E plus UW ranch obliviously.
 
roadrunner said:
I agree. But how often is the money used for other stuff than the intended purpose, and then the LO cries about all the damage done they can't repair/recover from?

I don't know the complete answer, but I do know for a [limited] fact some landowners do not use the money for its intended purpose...

And then as I posted earlier, if some of the tags are going unfilled, is it because not that many elk are on the property, or, are hunters too picky and not doing their part with Game and Fish to manage populations?
Click to expand...
There is no way to control what ranchers or bankers or sportsmen spend their money on unless you want to live in a communist society, and why would anyone care? If they meet the qualifications for the program they meet them. The program’s intended purpose is to provide compensation in the form of a voucher. What that individual chooses to do with it at that point is on them. If they sell it and throw it all on red at the roulette table that is up to them.
If they burn their tag or pass on dink or giant bulls looking for a mega giant who cares? If they give it away, throw it away, or use it great. There is no way of answering any of the questions you have asked. If those are the things folks worry about they need more hobbies.
Look at the HH ranch in unit 13. They get well north of 100 bull or ES archery tags. I bet they don’t use 5 (a public info request could determine the actual number), and who cares? Those elk will have to disperse at some point and move into the rest of the unit and I am sure the game managers will adjust tag numbers accordingly.
 
Booner said:
There is no way to control what ranchers or bankers or sportsmen spend their money on unless you want to live in a communist society, and why would anyone care? If they meet the qualifications for the program they meet them. The program’s intended purpose is to provide compensation in the form of a voucher. What that individual chooses to do with it at that point is on them. If they sell it and throw it all on red at the roulette table that is up to them.
If they burn their tag or pass on dink or giant bulls looking for a mega giant who cares? If they give it away, throw it away, or use it great. There is no way of answering any of the questions you have asked. If those are the things folks worry about they need more hobbies.
Look at the HH ranch in unit 13. They get well north of 100 bull or ES archery tags. I bet they don’t use 5 (a public info request could determine the actual number), and who cares? Those elk will have to disperse at some point and move into the rest of the unit and I am sure the game managers will adjust tag numbers accordingly.
Click to expand...

Then the LO needs to quite whining about the loss and damage every year if they don't fix it or put something in place to prevent damage and loss from occurring.

You so missed the point to my comments, as usual. The game department doesn't care whether or not the rich fatso from TX shoots the 390" bull they want.

They are only interested in whether or not the animals were taken out of the equation based on the reported loss and damage from the landowner and to lessen the overall impact the state owned animals may cause.

If that criteria isn't met, then either the tags don't need to be issued anymore, or, improper management is being practiced.

It most certainly and definitely matters what that money is used for and an honest effort being made to fill that tag...
 
It’s like stimulus money Uncle Sam gave out to everybody but me it seems. Some spent it on bills, groceries, living expenditures and necessities. Many spent it on booze and cigarettes and dope, and games and junk it was intended for. I’m much more concerned about my tax dollars going to fraudulent government assistance than I am about Farmer Jones spending his elk money on whatever he deems necessary at that moment.
 
roadrunner said:
Then the LO needs to quite whining about the loss and damage every year if they don't fix it or put something in place to prevent damage and loss from occurring.

You so missed the point to my comments, as usual. The game department doesn't care whether or not the rich fatso from TX shoots the 390" bull they want.

They are only interested in whether or not the animals were taken out of the equation based on the reported loss and damage from the landowner and to lessen the overall impact the state owned animals may cause.

If that criteria isn't met, then either the tags don't need to be issued anymore, or, improper management is being practiced.

It most certainly and definitely matters what that money is used for and an honest effort being made to fill that tag...
Click to expand...
I didn’t miss your point, it just didn’t make any sense to a rational person. There is no such thing as “reported loss and damage from the landowner” to the G&F. The micro data gained from analyzing an individual ranch is a waste of time unless you are talking about giant ranches. Elk just move too far and often. The unit data is what matters and G&F obviously does a good job at managing their elk. I am sure there are plenty of LO’s that whine, as there are plenty of hunters that do too. Before anyone thinks I am some rancher can do no wrong type of person I assure you that isn’t the case. Plenty of trash on both sides of the equation. Please post links to whiny rancher/ anti hunter Internet forums so we can troll them.
 

Similar threads

F
Change UNIT-WIDE elk designation in New Mexico to RANCH ONLY!
Replies
54
Views
2k
MrRogers
MrRogers
N
NM State Police killed
Replies
46
Views
3k
coryb
coryb
N
Western Hunt Expo. What is really going on?
2 3
Replies
202
Views
9k
Zim
Zim

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

9C43B227-9AA4-4621-8E5F-AFDDDA3BC4A8.jpeg
8A2C565A-53EB-4428-976A-AB6837FF323C.jpeg
3A3DC788-946E-489A-9468-A88E492CFC22.jpeg
20231109_065603.jpg
20220821_152736.jpg
C64D27F7-9759-4E4A-BD67-E37863A44EEB.jpeg
C5F6BB20-EF26-4BEB-A237-5DB9B3432E68.jpeg
2016-01-24 22.50.49.png
Great Looking Bull!
IMG_2224.jpg
elk4.jpg
20211028_172035[1].jpg

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