Heinrich's letter

throwfar

Active Member
Messages
152
Looking at this through two lenses, first being a guide and benefiting greatly from out of state hunters I realize reducing the amount of EPLUS tags will hurt me financially. Second being a resident and hunter I would love to draw more tags. Trying to be partial there are a lot of UW tags that are given that are controversial at best. I don't see how a 40 acre piece of private entitles someone to a UW bull tag in some units. That being said because I don't have a 40 acre lot who gets a bull tag that could sell for $6000 or more, might be singing a different tune if that was the case. What are you are all thoughts?

 
I've been waiting for this one... Just like you, I too have irons in multiple fires with this. As a partner in an outfitting business, a public land hunter, and a private landowner. As an outfitter, should the current system change as proposed by Heinrich, it will be the end of the outfitting business in NM as we know it. Many will not be able to survive on draw hunters alone, our business included. I know, cry me a river about your business Wes. As a public land hunter, of course I wouldn't mind seeing a few more tags available in the draw. Maybe moving my odds by 2-5%? Maybe I have the opportunity to draw every 3 years rather than every 4, IDK. As a landowner, I hate it. Why should I have to provide food and water to these animals on my deeded acreage with no benefit to me The only reason there are elk and deer on or near my property is because I have the groceries for them. This is true for many ranches across the state. I wouldn't be surprised to see many ranchers take the depredation route that we saw in 15 and up north in 4. That precedence has already been established. If I provide habitat for wildlife I should be compensated. I don't see state or federal agencies tripping over themselves to do habitat work. We all can agree that we just went through a drought stricken summer across the state. Any guesses on where those animals got water? Granted not every elk in NM drank from a well or water source that was there because of a rancher, but lets say 40% did. If they didn't have that resource how many of those 40% would have survived? Would mortality rates increase? Would areas on public land that had a viable water source been over utilized by the concentration of animals there? NM is 52% privately owned, alienating over half of the state for a marginal increase to draw odds doesn't seem like a win for wildlife. This is a complex issue and one that needs some type of reform, eliminating landowner tags wont fix the problem, it will create new ones. The price of tags isn't set by hunters or landowners, its set by the market and the demand. Do we all have a problem with oil and gas on private? Or how about windmills? Those landowners make money from them, just like the landowner tags. But we would never complain about cheaper gas prices and lower electricity bills. IDK. What about access that we have because landowners allow it or are required to grant it. Many of that comes from agreements that include perks, such as landowner tags. Would we all like to see NM covered in high fences? Drive through south Texas, its exhausting. I would argue that hunters would lose opportunity, rather than gain it. That's all hunters, youth hunters, in state hunters, out of state hunters, male, female, it doesn't matter, we are all hunters. Maybe ranch only tags are the answer? Who knows, as I said, a very complex issue. All interests should be considered when making changes. The goal should be common ground for all parties, I don't see that happening under the proposed changes.
 
As a NM issue, it's up to you guys to figure it out. I've benefitted from LO vouchers and made friends in the process. On the flip side, NM is the only state in the West where an Elk drop camp is illegal per regulation. Outfitter subsidy along the lines of WY wilderness rule so part of me isn't real sympathetic.
 
its a mess, Glad to hear passthrough speak from all sides on the issue. The private land does def provide a benefit to the resource. But what comes with that is some (not all) landowners take advantage by locking gates or access roads to public and have hunters hunt these landlocked public pieces some truly think they own every inch of the mtn public or private. Ive interacted with many landowners and that is my experience.
I agree it should be all ranch only, no unit wide tags should be issued would make public hunting a bit better and someone with 40 acres cant sell a tag for 6k to hunt public land. throw all those unit wide tags back to the draw. lets face it people who sign up as UW typically dont have great ranches to hunt anyway...

I also hate the outfitter welfare of allocating a percentage to people who contract with them. I 100% oppose this . Business should be earned not handed out like candy at random .if you cant tell I hate the option of the outfitter pool its a form of government handout
 
Arizona has no landowner tags and outfitters survive. Are they keeping landowner tags for private land only? That would help the landowner problems with game.

Seems like this is getting press because it can be presented to liberals/antihunters as an auction for rich hunter type garbage.
 
I hear you loud and clear on the outfitter pool stuff as I can sympathize with you. I can tell you from experience, there are a lot of NM residents in that outfitter pool. Out of 47 hunters that we put in the draw last year, we only drew 3. So about 6% draw odds as an aggregate. But an opportunity that some hunters do not have access to, I get it. No matter what side of the fence you are on, the health of the wildlife should be the most important factor in these decisions. The benefit the private landowners provide for the wildlife is substantial.
 
i agree the land you provide is substantial and you should have tags allocations if the property is deemed an elk benefit , keeps everyone happy. The unit wide tags have to go .

As for the outfitter welfare you may have "only" got three clients from that but that was 3 clients you otherwise would not have gained if your business was not related to outfitting . I dont see the state handing 3 unearned high paying jobs/clients to any other sectors or industries(less pay to play ) lol . Good outfitters survive just fine without the handouts. I feel the draw should change to a 90 -10 split add tha tgives residents and non a bit of a bump and lets outfitters earn based on knowledge and reputation which i dont think is unreasonable
 
Some of the best elk in my area show Up on my neighbors ranch about August and stay there until about the end of Februar. He gets UW tags and some awesome bulls have been killed on this ranch. He has also let some hunters that he’s gotten to know take a side by side to retrieve their bulls. Without LO tags this ranch will go back to “private property no hunting” or pay a big trespass fee. I’m sure the liberal no common scenes politicians in Santa Fe will screw up the great elk hunting in NM just like they are screwing up the once great stae.
 
My question to some is this:
What about someone that gets UW tags that allows access to public land? There are some places that get granted access because of UW ranches.

My other UW question is what about those ranches that are calving grounds? They have hundreds of elk on their place May, June, and July for calving then move on during the fall. Do they not deserve UW for raising all those calves on their place?
 
It was just an example of the number of tags available in the outfitter pool vs the number of people applying for them. By no means do I feel like I am a welfare recipient because I am using opportunities afforded to me because I have a business. The point being that with or without the outfitter pool, landowner tags are essential for my business. As you can clearly see by the other responses, there are layers to this issue. Its not only about hunting season. I'm feeding and watering them year round. In our state, the landowner portion is an essential part of wildlife management. Blanket policies seldom work, we have to find a common ground with this issue. I promise you that the common hunter will lose access due to this. It will open doors to roads being closed, UW access is gone, and so on. All for a negligible amount of tags issued back to the public.
 
Are they proposing doing something like the old antelope draw where you get to hunt a private ranch if you draw an elk tag?
 
I hear you loud and clear on the outfitter pool stuff as I can sympathize with you. I can tell you from experience, there are a lot of NM residents in that outfitter pool. Out of 47 hunters that we put in the draw last year, we only drew 3. So about 6% draw odds as an aggregate. But an opportunity that some hunters do not have access to, I get it. No matter what side of the fence you are on, the health of the wildlife should be the most important factor in these decisions. The benefit the private landowners provide for the wildlife is substantial.
Just curious. Of the 47 hunters that applied with you how many were residents?
 
Something similar to UT's CWMU program should be looked at. Landowners win. Hunters win.
Looking at this through two lenses, first being a guide and benefiting greatly from out of state hunters I realize reducing the amount of EPLUS tags will hurt me financially. Second being a resident and hunter I would love to draw more tags. Trying to be partial there are a lot of UW tags that are given that are controversial at best. I don't see how a 40 acre piece of private entitles someone to a UW bull tag in some units. That being said because I don't have a 40 acre lot who gets a bull tag that could sell for $6000 or more, might be singing a different tune if that was the case. What are you are all thoughts?

In the past (3 years ago) the smal...s a fight with landowners and makes no sense.
 
You only need 40 acres in NM to get a landowner tag?! That seems ridiculous. I don't agree with landowner tags being good for the entire unit either, they should be specific to that landowners property.

I am an outsider, but from what I've seen, Heinrich is probably the most hunter-friendly senator in the country and New Mexico is lucky to have him.
 
You only need 40 acres in NM to get a landowner tag?! That seems ridiculous. I don't agree with landowner tags being good for the entire unit either, they should be specific to that landowners property.

I am an outsider, but from what I've seen, Heinrich is probably the most hunter-friendly senator in the country and New Mexico is lucky to have him.
Well, I had something typed up but see I didn’t do something correctly.
Don’t overlook those “40 acre” parcels. With the changes made to EPLUS a few years ago they could be a hidden gem. If you haven’t looked at one on the ground don’t judge it. It might be the only water for miles. In the past 5 years I have been a part of taking bulls on EPLUS properties all less than 320 acres in size. If those were not UW you wouldn’t get to hunt them, or the landlocked public they block! If they were private tags an elk would still end up possibly dead but you don’t get the benefit of those 600,000 acres of private that are now open! It is a win for everyone. Why the hate on the UW tags??! If you think they are such a great deal roll they dice and buy a “40” and see where it goes. If that land becomes off limits then the elk get pushed on there and you can’t touch em, currently they are fair game for anyone. I don’t see the reason to dislike the program, it has come a long ways.
 
Newbie to NM here, please educate me. I was under the impression that if you got a landowner tag for your place it was only unit wide if you opened your property up for recreational opportunities. Maybe this rule was changed along the way or never existed, my memory is not all that great anymore.

Next question, lets say a guy had 100k burning a hole in his pocket. Could a guy buy 40+ acres in a more remote part of NM and have elk hunting opportunities every year? Asking for a friend
 
Newbie to NM here, please educate me. I was under the impression that if you got a landowner tag for your place it was only unit wide if you opened your property up for recreational opportunities. Maybe this rule was changed along the way or never existed, my memory is not all that great anymore.

Next question, lets say a guy had 100k burning a hole in his pocket. Could a guy buy 40+ acres in a more remote part of NM and have elk hunting opportunities every year? Asking for a friend

Yes, you could. Depends on if the area is in a core use area or not. Those parcels outside the core use area can receive an "OTC" tag, much like the private land oryx tags.

The landowner signs up for a unit wide designation and must allow unfettered access on their land for other public land tag holders for that species during the hunt time frame. Some units do not have that option such as 5A and 4 which are private land only.

The inherent issue with the EPLUS system is UW permits being sold to the highest bidder, with or without an outfitter. This permit is then in turn used on public land, bumping out an average Joe hunter from the same opportunity in the draw.

EPLUS has its place - for private land only. If 100 elk grazing all winter has a negative impact relative to agricultural use, issue 'X' tags and thin them out. If not, and you just have habitat with the gratification of owning land, then maybe you shouldn't be given a permit. I disagree with heinrich on a lot of his shenanigan's, however, I understand the argument about the wealthy having an upper advantage on public land.
 
Yes, you could. Depends on if the area is in a core use area or not. Those parcels outside the core use area can receive an "OTC" tag, much like the private land oryx tags.

The landowner signs up for a unit wide designation and must allow unfettered access on their land for other public land tag holders for that species during the hunt time frame. Some units do not have that option such as 5A and 4 which are private land only.

The inherent issue with the EPLUS system is UW permits being sold to the highest bidder, with or without an outfitter. This permit is then in turn used on public land, bumping out an average Joe hunter from the same opportunity in the draw.

EPLUS has its place - for private land only. If 100 elk grazing all winter has a negative impact relative to agricultural use, issue 'X' tags and thin them out. If not, and you just have habitat with the gratification of owning land, then maybe you shouldn't be given a permit. I disagree with heinrich on a lot of his shenanigan's, however, I understand the argument about the wealthy having an upper advantage on public land.
Well said and thanks for the clarification
 
“This permit is then in turn used on public land, bumping out an average Joe hunter from the same opportunity in the draw.”

Or it could be used on the 600,000 acres of private land that are open through the program. Don’t just throw out blanket statements to fit your narrative. Also, how is that bumping out an average Joe hunter with a permit that could be used in the draw? There are only X numbers of permits in the draw. You can’t take away landowner permits and now have X+Y for public hunters, and then issue those same landowners private land only tags. There isn’t an unlimited resource.
As to the question about spare cash and buying ground...have at it. I would make sure it qualifies first or you just wasted your money. The requirements to be in the program are pretty tight.
It baffles me that some hunters aren’t aware they can hunt these UW properties.
What if those same elk are only there from Jan through July? Then I guess the Jennings Law advocates would say mow ‘em down. Which you can’t do if you are in the program. It is a pretty solid program, some don’t like it because they don’t know what compromise is.
 
“This permit is then in turn used on public land, bumping out an average Joe hunter from the same opportunity in the draw.”

Or it could be used on the 600,000 acres of private land that are open through the program. Don’t just throw out blanket statements to fit your narrative. Also, how is that bumping out an average Joe hunter with a permit that could be used in the draw? There are only X numbers of permits in the draw. You can’t take away landowner permits and now have X+Y for public hunters, and then issue those same landowners private land only tags. There isn’t an unlimited resource.
As to the question about spare cash and buying ground...have at it. I would make sure it qualifies first or you just wasted your money. The requirements to be in the program are pretty tight.
It baffles me that some hunters aren’t aware they can hunt these UW properties.
What if those same elk are only there from Jan through July? Then I guess the Jennings Law advocates would say mow ‘em down. Which you can’t do if you are in the program. It is a pretty solid program, some don’t like it because they don’t know what compromise is.
Missed the point there Booner. It is NOT a blanket statement to fit a narrative. The point being made in the letter (and the whole premise to this thread) is that UW Landowner Tags are being sold to the highest bidder, aka the "wealthy", taking away the opportunity from the average, median household income hunter because that tag is not in the public draw. As you state, it is not an unlimited resource and as we learn from the 10 Principles of Economics, there ain't no free lunch. A UW tag to the landowner is a UW tag out of the draw. And then, you aren't even solving the "problem" that created the "solution".

UW landowner tags are only valid on other private land that also receives UW landowner tags for that unit, for that species, for the published hunt dates only.

And now the Marty has spoken, so it shall be done.

NM is anywhere from 15 - 20 years behind everyone else. Eventually, they'll figure it out too...
 
UW landowner tags are only valid on other private land that also receives UW landowner tags for that unit, for that species, for the published hunt dates only....be careful whe you use the word “only”. It makes your entire statement inaccurate. Again, to fit a narrative?
You left out the fact a UW tag is also valid on any public ground, AND any other private ground in the unit, heck it is even valid on ground that is Ranch Only, with permission.

Ok, for arguments sake that tag goes into the public draw. Now you have 600k less acres to hunt, congesting even more people onto the public land. And now you give those landowners RO tags also? That is now X+Y+Z. You will have to add tags. The math doesn’t work. Oh, and if you think those landowners are your friends now since you took away some tags let me help with that. Every gate locked
 
Booner is spot on, since when would you TRUST the narrative of a politician????????? Be careful what you wish for, the Jennings Law has already been discussed by multiple large ranches that I know of. Last time I checked that was a bad thing for wildlife.
 
UW landowner tags are only valid on other private land that also receives UW landowner tags for that unit, for that species, for the published hunt dates only....be careful whe you use the word “only”. It makes your entire statement inaccurate. Again, to fit a narrative?
You left out the fact a UW tag is also valid on any public ground, AND any other private ground in the unit, heck it is even valid on ground that is Ranch Only, with permission.

Ok, for arguments sake that tag goes into the public draw. Now you have 600k less acres to hunt, congesting even more people onto the public land. And now you give those landowners RO tags also? That is now X+Y+Z. You will have to add tags. The math doesn’t work. Oh, and if you think those landowners are your friends now since you took away some tags let me help with that. Every gate locked
Booner, Booner, Booner...your reading way too much into this. We are discussing the tenets of a Unit Wide Landowner tag. Of those tenets, the entire unit as a whole is part of it. You mentioned something about the other 600,000 acres of private open through the program. Let me help you out:

Or it could be used on the 600,000 acres of private land that are open through the program. Don’t just throw out blanket statements to fit your narrative.

My response was to address your comment illustrating that a UW designation worked on all other private that receives them as well as it applies to any public land tag holder issued through the draw. I full well know how the EPLUS program works. I use it all the time, you will not teach me anything about it. A UW tag also only allows that tag to be used only during specified hunt times published alongside other public land hunts whereas Ranch Only designations allow you to choose any consecutive 5 days within a several week time slot AND MAY ONLY be used on other private along with written permission but MAY NOT be used unit wide.

Again, the point to the letter is to address the "unfair" advantage the wealthy have in obtaining a permit to hunt public land that most everyone else has to hope for a successful result in a random draw which means they may not get the opportunity to hunt their home state very often whereas a rich guy can hunt a good unit every year because he has the coin to do so. The argument is to turn those tags back into the public draw for an equal chance.

To illustrate this point, I'll use 1st grade math. 1 UW EPLUS tag + 3 Public Land Draw Tags = 4 total UW tags. 0 UW EPLUS tags + 4 Public Land Draw Tags = 4 total UW tags.

Can't be any more clear than that...
 
OK...I just spent the last 3 hours searching land on zillow then finding those parcels on GoHunt to see what unit they were in. I found about 5 parcels under $100,000 and over 50 acres. As the marbles in my head spun faster I headed over to NM fish and game and looked up the process for getting land owner tags. I'M OUT... when it started talking about the percentage of land to the unit I knew my idea of buying a piece of property and hunting bulls every year wasn't going to work, not on my budget anyway. Best of luck to all of you, I am headed back over to the campfire where I belong.
 
Booner, Booner, Booner...your reading way too much into this. We are discussing the tenets of a Unit Wide Landowner tag. Of those tenets, the entire unit as a whole is part of it. You mentioned something about the other 600,000 acres of private open through the program. Let me help you out:



My response was to address your comment illustrating that a UW designation worked on all other private that receives them as well as it applies to any public land tag holder issued through the draw. I full well know how the EPLUS program works. I use it all the time, you will not teach me anything about it. A UW tag also only allows that tag to be used only during specified hunt times published alongside other public land hunts whereas Ranch Only designations allow you to choose any consecutive 5 days within a several week time slot AND MAY ONLY be used on other private along with written permission but MAY NOT be used unit wide.

Again, the point to the letter is to address the "unfair" advantage the wealthy have in obtaining a permit to hunt public land that most everyone else has to hope for a successful result in a random draw which means they may not get the opportunity to hunt their home state very often whereas a rich guy can hunt a good unit every year because he has the coin to do so. The argument is to turn those tags back into the public draw for an equal chance.

To illustrate this point, I'll use 1st grade math. 1 UW EPLUS tag + 3 Public Land Draw Tags = 4 total UW tags. 0 UW EPLUS tags + 4 Public Land Draw Tags = 4 total UW tags.

Can't be any more clear than that...
You obviously have your opinion and are entitled to it. You won’t teach me anything either bro. But you need to be called out when throwing out incorrect info, which you did.
600.000 + acres is what any average Joe will no longer be able to hunt if the UW tags disappear. Horrible idea.
Ok so back to your math...
So you want the landowners that were getting UW landowner tags to get 0 of those now. But if you give those landowners a RO tag now you are adding tags. Not going to work. RO tags get subtracted from the total tags available in a unit just like a UW tag does. The landowner backlash would be crippling. Again, you have your opinions and are entitled to them. I just can’t believe you don’t see the repercussions.
 
Booner, Booner, Booner...your reading way too much into this. We are discussing the tenets of a Unit Wide Landowner tag. Of those tenets, the entire unit as a whole is part of it. You mentioned something about the other 600,000 acres of private open through the program. Let me help you out:



My response was to address your comment illustrating that a UW designation worked on all other private that receives them as well as it applies to any public land tag holder issued through the draw. I full well know how the EPLUS program works. I use it all the time, you will not teach me anything about it. A UW tag also only allows that tag to be used only during specified hunt times published alongside other public land hunts whereas Ranch Only designations allow you to choose any consecutive 5 days within a several week time slot AND MAY ONLY be used on other private along with written permission but MAY NOT be used unit wide.

Again, the point to the letter is to address the "unfair" advantage the wealthy have in obtaining a permit to hunt public land that most everyone else has to hope for a successful result in a random draw which means they may not get the opportunity to hunt their home state very often whereas a rich guy can hunt a good unit every year because he has the coin to do so. The argument is to turn those tags back into the public draw for an equal chance.

To illustrate this point, I'll use 1st grade math. 1 UW EPLUS tag + 3 Public Land Draw Tags = 4 total UW tags. 0 UW EPLUS tags + 4 Public Land Draw Tags = 4 total UW tags.

Can't be any more clear than that...
I think the part you are missing is that the former UW ranch that you took the tag from and added it into the draw, now has RO tags allotted to them. That allotment comes from the same pool. As booner mentioned, these tags are not unlimited. They are derived from a harvest objective based on average success rates. Your example only works if the ranch chooses not to sign up for RO and drops out of the pool. Are you saying that all RO landowners will be allowed unlimited tags and wont be part of the harvest objective for their respective units? So now we want to potentially remove habitat, and increase the harvest?
 
I think the part you are missing is that the former UW ranch that you took the tag from and added it into the draw, now has RO tags allotted to them. That allotment comes from the same pool. As booner mentioned, these tags are not unlimited. They are derived from a harvest objective based on average success rates. Your example only works if the ranch chooses not to sign up for RO and drops out of the pool. Are you saying that all RO landowners will be allowed unlimited tags and wont be part of the harvest objective for their respective units? So now we want to potentially remove habitat, and increase the harvest?
1612476188004.gif
 
Newbie to NM here, please educate me. I was under the impression that if you got a landowner tag for your place it was only unit wide if you opened your property up for recreational opportunities. Maybe this rule was changed along the way or never existed, my memory is not all that great anymore.

Next question, lets say a guy had 100k burning a hole in his pocket. Could a guy buy 40+ acres in a more remote part of NM and have elk hunting opportunities every year? Asking for a friend
If you own property in elk country in NM first you have to apply for a LO tag and meet the NMG&F qualifications . They go by a point system for the property you are wanting to enroll in the Eplus program. Your property must have meaningful benefit to the elk, it must receive a score of 7 minimum for water, food, agriculture, cover. When applying you choose either UW or Ranch only it’s up to you. Then your application is sent to NMG&F, they will look into it and then determine if your property meets all the requirements. Size of the property doesn’t qualify the property it all comes down to ....meaningful benefit to the elk. Been there done that.
 
Oregon is far simpler but our herds so for it. If you have 40 acres you can 2 antlerless tags, 160 acres bumps you up to buck tags. The more land you have the more tags you can get. Only good for family and your land though
 
I can see both sides of this coin. It wasn't until recently that public land hunters could simply look up unit wide properties on the game and fish website. The program is just now beginning to operate how intended.

For years I had to do FOIA requests to the state for every UW enrolled parcel in the unit just to figure out what exactly was enrolled and where it was. The system was a boon to outfitters and private land owners for many years. Even knowing what is enrolled and where you're at, typical outfitter shenanigans to include locked gates and bluffs that you're "on deeded land" are at play.

That being said, I don't have a problem w/ the present system if it means keeping all sportsmen unified in the many battles to come w/ the anti-hunting and environmentalists crowd. Landowners do need to be compensated for the significant contributions they make to the resource. If that's high priced UW vouchers to the highest bidder so be it. I do wish they were better at honoring the other side of that contract with respect to public land hunters however.

Frankly, this issue is just another that serves to split us as a group of sportsmen. Another example of stepping over dollars to pick up pennies.

We currently have defenders of wildlife and Wild earth guardians, among others, wanting to rename nm game and fish to "NM wildlife conservation" with an obvious change to the department's mission, none of which are good for sportsmen.

We need to wake up, unify and stick together if we're going to have a chance against this onslaught of liberal policy change.
 
I love it. Some of the people complaining now about NM were silent when the state screwed NR hunters and allowed public resources (elk/deer/etc) to be handed over to private businesses (outfitters). I've waited years to watch everything come full circle.
 
You obviously have your opinion and are entitled to it. You won’t teach me anything either bro. But you need to be called out when throwing out incorrect info, which you did.
600.000 + acres is what any average Joe will no longer be able to hunt if the UW tags disappear. Horrible idea.
Ok so back to your math...
So you want the landowners that were getting UW landowner tags to get 0 of those now. But if you give those landowners a RO tag now you are adding tags. Not going to work. RO tags get subtracted from the total tags available in a unit just like a UW tag does. The landowner backlash would be crippling. Again, you have your opinions and are entitled to them. I just can’t believe you don’t see the repercussions.
Not throwing out any incorrect info, bro. You are missing the point to heinrich's letter. RO usually means elk are having a specific impact on that piece of property. There is a reason 'X' amount of elk need to be removed. UW means elk are on private occasionally with perhaps a very small number of resident elk.

We are talking about putting UW tags back into the draw that the "super rich" are buying from a landowner, and then hunting the same public land ridge as a guy that obtained the same tag through the random draw. The point is, a special advantage is being given to what they call the wealthy over the median household income hunter.

If the property issuing the UW EPLUS tag were so great, that "rich guy" would not need to hunt the entire unit. If the harvest objective is being met off the private ground, why not throw that tag back into the draw giving an increased chance of someone obtaining that tag through the random draw? That's the premise to the letter.

The elementary math problem using UW TAGS ONLY illustrates heinrich's argument.

Try to keep up...

I think the part you are missing is that the former UW ranch that you took the tag from and added it into the draw, now has RO tags allotted to them. That allotment comes from the same pool. As booner mentioned, these tags are not unlimited. They are derived from a harvest objective based on average success rates. Your example only works if the ranch chooses not to sign up for RO and drops out of the pool. Are you saying that all RO landowners will be allowed unlimited tags and wont be part of the harvest objective for their respective units? So now we want to potentially remove habitat, and increase the harvest?

If the UW tag thrown into the draw now has RO tags allotted to them, that same piece of property didn't need a UW tag to be issued in the first place because the harvest objective would be met annually on the private ground. We are talking about the UW tag being filled off private ground. We are talking about an outfitter first buying the UW tag from the landowner, then turning around and marking it up 100% and using that tag to find a big bull for their client. The point to all this is putting those UW tags into the draw, and let outfitters play the game of a free market or select the private ground that will produce for their client.

Again, we are only discussing the UW tags, not RO. Will removing UW tags from the mix reduce total acreage a public land draw tag holder can hunt?

Yep. Never said it wouldn't. What I did say is I understand the argument. Never have I said I agree with it. I have been talking about what the letter is proposing, not whether or not it makes sense or makes it better.

The EPLUS for UW designations gives more opportunity to fill your tag without selling a kidney on the black market, if you're lucky enough to draw one.
 
Last edited:
“I have been talking about what the letter is proposing, not whether or not it makes sense or makes it better.”
**** bro, why didn’t you just say that to begin with. I think we have proven it neither makes sense, or makes it better. Glad we could help.
 
You cant use UW tags only in your argument because you are assuming that these ranches wont go RO. You have to look at the big picture, how the dominoes will fall when things change. Who cares about the money, its the wildlife that we should be worried about. Do you despise the guy driving the Ferrari next to you at the stop light because he has more money than you? Maybe he earned it, ever think of that? Not every tag is sold for an exorbitant amount of money. I sell all of my tags for far less than you 6k example, I get what the market dictates. What about all of the cow tags ranchers give to youth hunters, we don't talk about those. Include the entire rhetoric.

Ok, lets try this. Go online and check out the Adobe ranch in 16C. 38,065 acres of PRIME elk habitat open for you to hunt. They get 85 UW tags. So, according to the letter, they want to take all of those 85 tags and throw them in the draw for hunter opportunity in that unit. I got that, no need for a big chief notebook and crayons. Now back to the Adobe, lets say they go back to being RO, as they were for decades. How many elk tags do they get? The same 85? Unlimited? None? By default we add more tags, more elk will die, not to mention hunters just lost 38k acres of access to prime elk habitat to hunt.
 
Lot of points and good discussion going on here. I have zero experience with EPLUS, so I could be completely ignorant to reality of what goes on. But my thought as a public land hunter, was that if a person owns property that qualifies for an elk tag and he/she chooses UW instead of RO, they most likely don't have that great a place to hunt. If they did, why would they risk letting public draw hunters on their place to possibly kill the big bull their client/tag purchaser could kill? I'm sure there are exceptions to this, but I would assume the majority of the properties that choose UW fit into this category. As a public draw hunter, it has always just been a sore spot when you spend years applying for a tag, finally draw, and then you talk to a guy that was able to buy a tag to hunt the same public land. To Passthrough's point, I don't think eliminating the UW option would really make the draw odds go up much because the landowner would either choose a RO tag or I guess get some other type of compensation from G&F, it would be more of "fair" argument.

Travis
 
I really try to stay out of this argument, because I know how hard the lines are draw.
I am 100% convinced that the intention of this legislation is to further drive a wedge between hunters, ranchers and outfitters. All these groups are allies on 90% of the issues . Just another way to exasperate class relations.
There are definitely inequities in the current outfitter allotment. However, Heinrich is the last person I would trust to make any changes.
UW & RO tag system is a necessary evil. There is no other way to make certain ranchers and land owners value wildlife. In an arid state like NM if ranchers did not keep YEAR AROUND water in certain areas there would be NO deer/elk/barbary/antelope in those areas. Thats a fact. If you dispute that, you are completely ignorant to our environment. While there are problems with both current systems, the last thing we should let happen is let these Communists get involved and play politics with it.
 
Something similar to UT's CWMU program should be looked at. Landowners win. Hunters win.
I disagree with heinrich on a lot of his shenanigan's, however, I understand the argument about the wealthy having an upper advantage on public land.

**** bro, why didn’t you just say that to begin with. I think we have proven it neither makes sense, or makes it better. Glad we could help.

See above. Didn't think I needed to, however, for some...
 
Lot of points and good discussion going on here. I have zero experience with EPLUS, so I could be completely ignorant to reality of what goes on. But my thought as a public land hunter, was that if a person owns property that qualifies for an elk tag and he/she chooses UW instead of RO, they most likely don't have that great a place to hunt. If they did, why would they risk letting public draw hunters on their place to possibly kill the big bull their client/tag purchaser could kill? I'm sure there are exceptions to this, but I would assume the majority of the properties that choose UW fit into this category. As a public draw hunter, it has always just been a sore spot when you spend years applying for a tag, finally draw, and then you talk to a guy that was able to buy a tag to hunt the same public land. To Passthrough's point, I don't think eliminating the UW option would really make the draw odds go up much because the landowner would either choose a RO tag or I guess get some other type of compensation from G&F, it would be more of "fair" argument.

Travis
It has nothing to do with draw odds going up with UW EPLUS designations going back into the draw. According to heinrich's letter, it has everything to do with the "unfair" advantage of the "wealthy" to buy up a tag not in the public draw and use said tag on public ground, especially when, or because, the private ground for which the UW EPLUS tag was allocated for in the first place is lacking in elk nose count or trophy quality.
You cant use UW tags only in your argument because you are assuming that these ranches wont go RO. You have to look at the big picture, how the dominoes will fall when things change. Who cares about the money, its the wildlife that we should be worried about. Do you despise the guy driving the Ferrari next to you at the stop light because he has more money than you? Maybe he earned it, ever think of that? Not every tag is sold for an exorbitant amount of money. I sell all of my tags for far less than you 6k example, I get what the market dictates. What about all of the cow tags ranchers give to youth hunters, we don't talk about those. Include the entire rhetoric.

Ok, lets try this. Go online and check out the Adobe ranch in 16C. 38,065 acres of PRIME elk habitat open for you to hunt. They get 85 UW tags. So, according to the letter, they want to take all of those 85 tags and throw them in the draw for hunter opportunity in that unit. I got that, no need for a big chief notebook and crayons. Now back to the Adobe, lets say they go back to being RO, as they were for decades. How many elk tags do they get? The same 85? Unlimited? None? By default we add more tags, more elk will die, not to mention hunters just lost 38k acres of access to prime elk habitat to hunt.

Whether or not a ranch decides to go RO at a later date is irrelevant to this discussion as the arguement in question is whether or not the UW tags go back into the public draw out of "fairness" to the blue collar worker and not the privelged rich.

The whole point is to 1) only allocate RO tags to those that legitimately need them as a source of recompense for wildlife damage to crops and livestock graze, and, 2) repeal the Jennings Law to ensure those RO tags are used for their intended purpose.

The arguement is with UW in use along with RO is defeating the purpose of the EPLUS program and providing a monopolistic competition among outfitters and advantaging the wealthy on public ground.

Heinrich is a day late and a dollar short with his intent and arguement with the recent (2 yrs now) changes in how private is evaluated. The real question about ground like Adobe is how many of those 85 tags were used (filled) on Adobe soil and how many were used on public land. My guess is a mix somewhere.

According to heinrich, the ones used on public should be the ones in the public draw. His whole point is someone like him should not be allowed to buy up a tag, and then go use it where everyone else hopes to draw. It has nothing to do whether or not just any hunter can use the UW access principle with their random draw tag, but about the priveledged few that don't go through the draw process and get to hunt public anyway. It's the whole lame social justice narrative.

The EPLUS program for UW tags opens up private ground to spread out the crowds and to access public ground that would otherwise be off limits or landlocked, no doubting that. I have used this to my advantage with public land tags with success and actually like most of the program for what it is.

This is why I stated something like UT's CWMU program should be looked at...
 
NMPaul: "the last thing we should let happen is let these Communists get involved and play politics with it."

This is the correct answer.

Whatever their "good-intentioned solution" ends up being, the fallout for us average law-abiding citizens will be worse than what we're currently putting up with. They have a proven track record.
 
One of the things that people who oppose UW tags in New Mexico and Colorado fail to realize or recognize... Often times those properties provide critical habitat to the animals at times outside of hunting season. Therefore they do not have the ability to harvest animals on their property during hunting season. A UW tag allows them a chance to hunt the animals they feed all winter or provide calving grounds to during the late spring and summer.

In states where you can transfer those tags, some may choose to take the monetary compensation of selling the tag instead of using it to hunt. In NM you also get the bonus of that property being available to public hunters to access. Better than most places.
 
One of the things that people who oppose UW tags in New Mexico and Colorado fail to realize or recognize... Often times those properties provide critical habitat to the animals at times outside of hunting season. Therefore they do not have the ability to harvest animals on their property during hunting season. A UW tag allows them a chance to hunt the animals they feed all winter or provide calving grounds to during the late spring and summer.

In states where you can transfer those tags, some may choose to take the monetary compensation of selling the tag instead of using it to hunt. In NM you also get the bonus of that property being available to public hunters to access. Better than most places.
100%. But the haters have to hate.
 

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