Lets look at the numbers

passthrough

Active Member
Messages
352
With all of the chatter about E-PLUS and a 90/10 split on tags, I thought I would pick a unit and go through the numbers. As with all of these exercises we have some assumptions, so the numbers are not EXACT, but they give you an idea of what some of these changes would equate to. Secondly the numbers are from the complete draw report 2021, found on the G&F website. Landowner information is from the landowner list also found on the website. Odds are never an exact science, but rather an adequate representation of the probablilty of success. Here goes....

ELK 1-187
Current draw process with the 84/10/6 split

Resident odds-3.4%
NR odds-2%
Outfitter odds-4.6%

With a 90/10 split
1st assumption is that of the 217 applicants in the outfitter pool, 80% of them are NR.
2nd assumption is that the remaining 20% are resident applicants, which I think is too high but whatever.
3rd assumption is that all everyone that applied in the outfitter pool would continue to apply as a NR or resident. Essentially saying that the number of applicants stays the same, just distributed differently.

Resident odds-3.6%
NR odds-2%

E-PLUS, I took all of the UW bull tags for this unit, which was 38 and divided them by 3 since they could potentially be validated for the muzzy hunt and 1st and 2nd rifle hunt and then added them into the draw tag pool, as that is what most suggest that we do once we cut them out of the landowners pool. The first assumption is that all of those ranches dont opt to go RO and maintain their tag numbers. Second assumption is that it is with a 90/10 split, since we all seem to hate the outfitter welfare program.

Resident odds-4.1%
NR odds-2.2%
Lost access to hunt private land with a public draw tag-9,648 elk acres, not including the huge blocks of public land that they open up for easier access.

I know this is only one unit, chosen at random, and there are a ton of assumptions, but its something to look at and ponder the benfits and consequences of lobying for all of these changes. I know you all think that once we change it, you'll draw a tag every year, but thats just not the case. And yes, I have way too much time on my hands now that I'm not constantly checking the G&F website for results.
 
Last edited:
Double edged sword. I'd rather keep being able to access my BLM land "honey-hole" for youth encouragement elk across private dirt that gets UW tags.

I'll take a 0.20% increase in "odds" any day of the week....
 
I'd say that's a pretty close breakdown of actual gains/losses there if e-plus were dropped and we went to 90/10. Very similar effects in any unit I would think.....almost imperceptible increase in draw odds for residents, loss of accessible private land we can hunt, and possible loss of cooperation with private landowners in good management of elk.
Some people and organizations would have you believe that every resident will draw an elk tag every year if e-plus were dropped.......not even close to reality AND we have too much private land in the state to not acknowledge landowners' contributions to maintaining the elk herds.
 
Pretty easy to see how E-Plus has grown to what it is. There is no consensus on what’s right or wrong among hunters. Some see it as a back up plan if they don’t draw, some see it as an access issue, (which doesn’t make a lot of sense to me since it’s only for elk. I do take advantage of it though) some want it totally eliminated and some want to eliminate UW authorizations. I see it only getting bigger like this, until/if there is ever a court ruling.
 
As far as I am aware private land owners are not allowed to lock gates across private land if it denies sole access to BLM. I’m not saying that it doesn’t happen but I believe it is unlawful. Why would land owners not offer trespass fees to make up for their losses. I think many would pay for access private holdings. Just my 2 cents
 
As far as I am aware private land owners are not allowed to lock gates across private land if it denies sole access to BLM. I’m not saying that it doesn’t happen but I believe it is unlawful. Why would land owners not offer trespass fees to make up for their losses. I think many would pay for access private holdings. Just my 2 cents

Yeah, they can. If it's not deeded or negotiated access, locking the gate isn't necessarily keeping you off the public land. The BLM's stance is if you can access it by foot, it's not denying access.
 
With all of the chatter about E-PLUS and a 90/10 split on tags, I thought I would pick a unit and go through the numbers. As with all of these exercises we have some assumptions, so the numbers are not EXACT, but they give you an idea of what some of these changes would equate to. Secondly the numbers are from the complete draw report 2021, found on the G&F website. Landowner information is from the landowner list also found on the website. Odds are never an exact science, but rather an adequate representation of the probablilty of success. Here goes....

ELK 1-187
Current draw process with the 84/10/6 split

Resident odds-3.4%
NR odds-2%
Outfitter odds-4.6%

With a 90/10 split
1st assumption is that of the 217 applicants in the outfitter pool, 80% of them are NR.
2nd assumption is that the remaining 20% are resident applicants, which I think is too high but whatever.
3rd assumption is that all everyone that applied in the outfitter pool would continue to apply as a NR or resident. Essentially saying that the number of applicants stays the same, just distributed differently.

Resident odds-3.6%
NR odds-2%

E-PLUS, I took all of the UW bull tags for this unit, which was 38 and divided them by 3 since they could potentially be validated for the muzzy hunt and 1st and 2nd rifle hunt and then added them into the draw tag pool, as that is what most suggest that we do once we cut them out of the landowners pool. The first assumption is that all of those ranches dont opt to go RO and maintain their tag numbers. Second assumption is that it is with a 90/10 split, since we all seem to hate the outfitter welfare program.

Resident odds-4.1%
NR odds-2.2%
Lost access to hunt private land with a public draw tag-9,648 elk acres, not including the huge blocks of public land that they open up for easier access.

I know this is only one unit, chosen at random, and there are a ton of assumptions, but its something to look at and ponder the benfits and consequences of lobying for all of these changes. I know you all think that once we change it, you'll draw a tag every year, but thats just not the case. And yes, I have way too much time on my hands now that I'm not constantly checking the G&F website for is a great analysis that show how little the needle really moves by making all these
Great analysis that shows how little the needle really moves on res & nonres draw odds by going to a 90/10 split. I’m definitely not opposed to a 90/10 split but res and nonresident applicants that have this notion that all of a sudden they are gonna draw tags like never before are living in fantasy land
 
Good example of how it wont change drawing odds much. Something else to consider is there are very little to no easements that give access of those two track roads that go through private to get to public. If You get rid of the UW option for LO that have 20 acres. There goes acess to 2000 acres of public.. That creates an incentive for a LO to lock his gate and charge trespass fee to make some money lost from UW tags. No UW options would cause LO to lock more gates as we are seeing in antelope country now with the Private land only tags. I'm not a fan of UW but they do serve a purpose. Getting rid of them might decrease accessible public land significantly. Look at the southern Peloncillo's now, no elk, no UW, and no access to the majority of that forest. Its all land locked by private. Now think if a LO could get a UW deer tag and intern open access for hunters what a good deal that would be. Its not a cut and dry issue
 
As a NR I know my opinion isn’t as valid as residents but I agree with keeping the LO tags and the access it provides. I think there should be some stricter rules to qualify/access granted also.
Why not just eliminate the outfitters pool/welfare and make it 85/15?
 
Great analysis that shows how little the needle really moves on res & nonres draw odds by going to a 90/10 split. I’m definitely not opposed to a 90/10 split but res and nonresident applicants that have this notion that all of a sudden they are gonna draw tags like never before are living in fantasy land

In reality, it's a 7% increase in tags for DIY residents and a 67% increase for DIY nonresidents. The "odds" are whatever they are based on who and how many apply which varies from year to year.
 
IMO the access issue is overrated. The majority of UW properties in the units I spend time in do not allow road/vehicle access. Maybe in other units they do, but that’s not my experience. I can think of one UW property in the units I’m familiar with that makes access a lot easier and I kind of wish they’d go RO to make it more difficult. I have a trespass agreement with one RO property to access public land via a road and it works well for all species. This is something that we’ll all never agree on.

Good example of how it wont change drawing odds much. Something else to consider is there are very little to no easements that give access of those two track roads that go through private to get to public. If You get rid of the UW option for LO that have 20 acres. There goes acess to 2000 acres of public.. That creates an incentive for a LO to lock his gate and charge trespass fee to make some money lost from UW tags. No UW options would cause LO to lock more gates as we are seeing in antelope country now with the Private land only tags. I'm not a fan of UW but they do serve a purpose. Getting rid of them might decrease accessible public land significantly. Look at the southern Peloncillo's now, no elk, no UW, and no access to the majority of that forest. Its all land locked by private. Now think if a LO could get a UW deer tag and intern open access for hunters what a good deal that would be. Its not a cut and dry issue
 
There needs to stricter rules. Let's take unit 17 for example. There are 18 ranches under 100 acres that get unit wide tags, some as small as TEN ACRES. That's a huge problem. Exactly how often are elk on those tiny ranches that they deserve a tag that sells for probably a quarter of their land value?
 
There needs to stricter rules. Let's take unit 17 for example. There are 18 ranches under 100 acres that get unit wide tags, some as small as TEN ACRES. That's a huge problem. Exactly how often are elk on those tiny ranches that they deserve a tag that sells for probably a quarter of their land value?

As long as those smaller tracts don't cut off larger tracts of public.
 
The only UW tags I bought were in Cloudcroft. Many years ago. We were never offered ranch access or even knew where the ranch was. We all tagged out so to me it was a non issue. I contacted the owner later and he no longer sells them. All tags go to an “outfitter” that marks them up 3-5X and re-distributes them. They were above my budget or what I was willing to pay for a cow tag. I could have bought a Moo cow and had it processes for what the outfitter wanted. The doctor that owned the ranch was not charging much more than he did previously. I believe the “ranch” was only 40 acres. More like a private cabin in the woods
 
As you can see its a very complex issue, with a number of varying opinions. Finding common ground in regards to E-Plus will be difficult, but its truly the only way the system will get better. I believe that we have a good footprint that needs a little finetuning. One thing to remember is that the acreage that is reported is ELK OCCUPIED ACRES, not the size of the property. This isnt the E-Plus system from long ago, this one is better. All of the properties are reviewed and scored by the department. I think we can all agree that the odds of drawing your favorite tag or tags are decreasing every year, the silver lining is that we are recruiting new hunters every year and that is a good thing for the viability of our sport. Love it or hate it, its the reality of it. Increased demand on tags across the west is now our new reality, thus driving up cost. Along with the access that we gain from UW tags for landowners, lets not forget that landowners offer refuge to wildlife. Not only in our state, but across the west. Its about the wildlife, not YOUR oppertunity. Obviously its not the same in every unit of our state, some are more rural than others, but think of a landowner selling and subdividing his property. A property that for decades was winter range for wildlife, or maybe a major travel corridor, or calving ground. Its not just hunting season, its year round managment. Loss of habitat is one of the biggest issues facing wildlife in every state. Urban sprawl is real folks. Incentivising a landowner to keep his or her land versus selling and subdividing is a critical part of current day wildlife managment, and one that should not be overlooked. Think big picture guys.
 
There needs to stricter rules. Let's take unit 17 for example. There are 18 ranches under 100 acres that get unit wide tags, some as small as TEN ACRES. That's a huge problem. Exactly how often are elk on those tiny ranches that they deserve a tag that sells for probably a quarter of their land value?
I know of a few 20 acre properties that see daily use of elk, and open up access to adjoining landlocked public. It’s the only consistent water source available for miles. Without it there would be an occasional elk moving through. With the water there they stay. This focus on the size of a property vs what it offers is a poor argument.
 
I know of a few 20 acre properties that see daily use of elk, and open up access to adjoining landlocked public. It’s the only consistent water source available for miles. Without it there would be an occasional elk moving through. With the water there they stay. This focus on the size of a property vs what it offers is a poor argument.

That's what he's saying. Unless there is a legit usage from elk, a piece of private dirt shouldn't get a tag just because elk "might" use it/move through.
 
That's what he's saying. Unless there is a legit usage from elk, a piece of private dirt shouldn't get a tag just because elk "might" use it/move through.
No offense, but your reading comprehension could use some work. The guy literally highlighted how many sub 100 acre EPLUS properties are in a unit and then went on to ask “Exactly how often are elk on those tiny ranches…?”

So I highlighted an example of daily use on a 20 ac piece, which adjoins and opens up a ton of public.

Then he states “stricter rules” are needed, which are already in place, so they aren’t really necessary…but please tell me where I essentially restated his position.
 
No offense, but your reading comprehension could use some work. The guy literally highlighted how many sub 100 acre EPLUS properties are in a unit and then went on to ask “Exactly how often are elk on those tiny ranches…?”

So I highlighted an example of daily use on a 20 ac piece, which adjoins and opens up a ton of public.

Then he states “stricter rules” are needed, which are already in place, so they aren’t really necessary…but please tell me where I essentially restated his position.

Booner, Booner, Booner...:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

You're overthinking it again. The guy literally used it as an example to illustrate a point. Otherwise you would've flown off the handle about making stuff up.
 
In your original situation, it would also be interesting to see the loss of revenue to the Game and Fish with this change.
 
In your original situation, it would also be interesting to see the loss of revenue to the Game and Fish with this change.

You would first need to know how many extra licenses above the 6% are awarded to nonresidents, that information isn't available on the draw results spreadsheets Game and Fish makes available to "calculate odds".

The number of applicants wouldn't decrease, if anything, it may increase slightly because of the increased chance for a tag due to the DIY allotment.

Going back to the OP, if you assumed 80% of the 10% went to nonresidents, it bumps the nonresident allotment by an additional 8% raising the nonresident allotment to 14%. The increase in known revenue would be by 8% across the board for all game tags. With this same assumption, the decrease in revenue would be 4% across the board if it went to a 90/10 split. The biggest impact would, of course, be through elk and deer tags.
 
No offense, but your reading comprehension could use some work. The guy literally highlighted how many sub 100 acre EPLUS properties are in a unit and then went on to ask “Exactly how often are elk on those tiny ranches…?”

So I highlighted an example of daily use on a 20 ac piece, which adjoins and opens up a ton of public.

Then he states “stricter rules” are needed, which are already in place, so they aren’t really necessary…but please tell me where I essentially restated his position.
You’re reading comprehension could use some work. Because that’s exactly what I meant. Stricter rules meaning how can a ten acre parcel of land block rights to thousands of public acres behind it? Doesn’t seem right does it?
 
You’re reading comprehension could use some work. Because that’s exactly what I meant. Stricter rules meaning how can a ten acre parcel of land block rights to thousands of public acres behind it? Doesn’t seem right does it?
How can a 10 acre parcel block access to 1,000s of acres of public?? I hope that isn’t an actual question. If it is you must have just started hunting in the last month or so.

Doesn’t seem right does it? No it doesn’t. But neither does $5 diesel, 200k illegals a month, inflation at a 40 yr high, and allegedly over half the voting public voting for the clown we have leading our nation.

Here is what you wrote below. The first sentence wasn’t even a complete sentence BTW. You said nothing about landlocked public, but mentioned a “huge problem” and then asked a question.

“There needs to stricter rules. Let's take unit 17 for example. There are 18 ranches under 100 acres that get unit wide tags, some as small as TEN ACRES. That's a huge problem. Exactly how often are elk on those tiny ranches that they deserve a tag that sells for probably a quarter of their land value?”
 
How can a 10 acre parcel block access to 1,000s of acres of public?? I hope that isn’t an actual question. If it is you must have just started hunting in the last month or so.

Doesn’t seem right does it? No it doesn’t. But neither does $5 diesel, 200k illegals a month, inflation at a 40 yr high, and allegedly over half the voting public voting for the clown we have leading our nation.

Here is what you wrote below. The first sentence wasn’t even a complete sentence BTW. You said nothing about landlocked public, but mentioned a “huge problem” and then asked a question.

“There needs to stricter rules. Let's take unit 17 for example. There are 18 ranches under 100 acres that get unit wide tags, some as small as TEN ACRES. That's a huge problem. Exactly how often are elk on those tiny ranches that they deserve a tag that sells for probably a quarter of their land value?”

Funny how 6 other people can follow along with what he was saying...

:rolleyes:
 
Like I said, lots of assumptions, but an illustration of what it could truly look like. Be cafeful what you wish for. Changing the regs wont result in you drawing a tag any easier than it is right now. And changing the E-Plus rules wont help either. Dont drink the kool aid that NMWF and others are pouring for you, do the research, educate yourself, then decide.
 
Like I said, lots of assumptions, but an illustration of what it could truly look like. Be cafeful what you wish for. Changing the regs wont result in you drawing a tag any easier than it is right now. And changing the E-Plus rules wont help either. Dont drink the kool aid that NMWF and others are pouring for you, do the research, educate yourself, then decide.

Yep - don't fix a broken round wheel by replacing it with a broken square one...
 
Agree with you on NMWF, but E-Plus needs an overhaul IMO. I can see how LO’s and outfitters are happy with the current system, but it has grown into something it never should have IMO.


Like I said, lots of assumptions, but an illustration of what it could truly look like. Be cafeful what you wish for. Changing the regs wont result in you drawing a tag any easier than it is right now. And changing the E-Plus rules wont help either. Dont drink the kool aid that NMWF and others are pouring for you, do the research, educate yourself, then decide.
 
I do not mind the landowners receiving compensation for damages and improvements to the land that aide natural wildlife. Not at all actually. But, what I do mind is when they don't hold up their end of the bargain, or a small parcel of land is able to landlock thousands of acres of public land. There has to be some sort of work around. I know places where a ten acre land parcel blocks national forest behind it, and charges an access fee. Now, why should a ten acre parcel of land own the rights to a forest service road? And, why can't NMDGF and the forest service work something out with them to allow access, instead of giving them unit wide tags only for them to keep the gate locked?
 
I do not mind the landowners receiving compensation for damages and improvements to the land that aide natural wildlife. Not at all actually. But, what I do mind is when they don't hold up their end of the bargain, or a small parcel of land is able to landlock thousands of acres of public land. There has to be some sort of work around. I know places where a ten acre land parcel blocks national forest behind it, and charges an access fee. Now, why should a ten acre parcel of land own the rights to a forest service road? And, why can't NMDGF and the forest service work something out with them to allow access, instead of giving them unit wide tags only for them to keep the gate locked?

There is another real example of this in the Carson NF Jicarilla Ranger District. The forest had to reroute the road to keep access open.
 
There is another real example of this in the Carson NF Jicarilla Ranger District. The forest had to reroute the road to keep access open.
Mine has been in the cibola national forest. And have had that same landowner, before he locked the gate, probably twenty years ago, stop us to talk while driving through his little chunk of land. Where he has stables to brand his cattle and then release them onto national forest land. He told us he didn’t like people hunting “his elk”, and was waiting until opening morning to do a cattle drive. Sure enough, opening morning comes and he’s driving his cattle from the higher hills down thru the low country, and we didn’t see a single elk. Had to pick up and relocate. That’s the kind of landowners I am talking about. Put in a complaint, only for nothing to happen. Went back the next year, and the gate was closed with a number to call for access, $100 a day per person. Don’t think it’s fair that the land our tax dollars pay to maintain can be manipulated like that. All while his ten acre parcel, which from my research is all he owns in the area, is allowed to control so much forest behind it. Absolutely no other way into it.
 
Mine has been in the cibola national forest. And have had that same landowner, before he locked the gate, probably twenty years ago, stop us to talk while driving through his little chunk of land. Where he has stables to brand his cattle and then release them onto national forest land. He told us he didn’t like people hunting “his elk”, and was waiting until opening morning to do a cattle drive. Sure enough, opening morning comes and he’s driving his cattle from the higher hills down thru the low country, and we didn’t see a single elk. Had to pick up and relocate. That’s the kind of landowners I am talking about. Put in a complaint, only for nothing to happen. Went back the next year, and the gate was closed with a number to call for access, $100 a day per person. Don’t think it’s fair that the land our tax dollars pay to maintain can be manipulated like that. All while his ten acre parcel, which from my research is all he owns in the area, is allowed to control so much forest behind it. Absolutely no other way into it.
He’s not allowed to drive cattle on that property during the hunt nor is he allowed to deny all access to that property. Call the Game Warden, and the Sheriffs Office and file a complaint. We ran into this issue decades ago and had it resolved with the assistance of the aforementioned.
 
All valid concerns for sure, as I said, its a good footprint and place to start, no need to revamp the entire system because of a lack of accountablilty by the department. Pointing fingers and blanket statements will not make any of this better. Like anything in life, there are people with integrity and those that lack integrity. Screaming for change because you were wronged by a landowner shouldnt be a reason to lump all landowners in that category. I could on for days about the garbage hunters that I've encountered in the field, but what for? I'm smart enough to understand that not all hunters are like that, just like not all landowners are like the ones you had issues with. Bad apples fall from both sides of the tree. This is more of an issue with law enforcement than it is an issue with E-Plus. Finding the common ground in all of this will make it better, squabbling over whos right and whos wrong only hurts us as a whole.
 
All valid concerns for sure, as I said, its a good footprint and place to start, no need to revamp the entire system because of a lack of accountablilty by the department. Pointing fingers and blanket statements will not make any of this better. Like anything in life, there are people with integrity and those that lack integrity. Screaming for change because you were wronged by a landowner shouldnt be a reason to lump all landowners in that category. I could on for days about the garbage hunters that I've encountered in the field, but what for? I'm smart enough to understand that not all hunters are like that, just like not all landowners are like the ones you had issues with. Bad apples fall from both sides of the tree. This is more of an issue with law enforcement than it is an issue with E-Plus. Finding the common ground in all of this will make it better, squabbling over whos right and whos wrong only hurts us as a whole.
1650992179405.gif
 
All valid concerns for sure, as I said, its a good footprint and place to start, no need to revamp the entire system because of a lack of accountablilty by the department. Pointing fingers and blanket statements will not make any of this better. Like anything in life, there are people with integrity and those that lack integrity. Screaming for change because you were wronged by a landowner shouldnt be a reason to lump all landowners in that category. I could on for days about the garbage hunters that I've encountered in the field, but what for? I'm smart enough to understand that not all hunters are like that, just like not all landowners are like the ones you had issues with. Bad apples fall from both sides of the tree. This is more of an issue with law enforcement than it is an issue with E-Plus. Finding the common ground in all of this will make it better, squabbling over whos right and whos wrong only hurts us as a whole.

I think really all was being said is stating the specific example brought up earlier about a micro sized parcel of land blocking access. The icing on the cake is the nimrod that, first, pretended they were his elk, and second, had the gall to commit a wildlife violation by harassing licensed hunters.

The whole point is asking the question of do all small tract landowners really need a landowner tag, and, are they only given the tag to keep large tracts of public accessible and open?
 
He’s not allowed to drive cattle on that property during the hunt nor is he allowed to deny all access to that property. Call the Game Warden, and the Sheriffs Office and file a complaint. We ran into this issue decades ago and had it resolved with the assistance of the aforementioned.
I did call the game department and a sheriff. I posted about it on here a while back. It was the good ole boys treatment. A game warden never showed up, only the sheriff. This was 17 or so years ago. The sheriff said it wasn't his jurisdiction, and the game department said they didn't have an available officer. Took my info, and said someone would contact me. When no one did, I went into the office and filed a complaint. The gate has been locked since I did that. And I was told he owned the easement to the road, so I don't think he liked my complaint one bit.
 
I did call the game department and a sheriff. I posted about it on here a while back. It was the good ole boys treatment. A game warden never showed up, only the sheriff. This was 17 or so years ago. The sheriff said it wasn't his jurisdiction, and the game department said they didn't have an available officer. Took my info, and said someone would contact me. When no one did, I went into the office and filed a complaint. The gate has been locked since I did that. And I was told he owned the easement to the road, so I don't think he liked my complaint one bit.
Shotguns with bird shot remove locks with ease ? ? kidding but keep pushing and hopefully somebody will pay attention. I have real issues that small tract owners can landlock a large piece of public then make a mint off a tag
 

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