NM public hunters getting locked out

[steamboat_bill]

The New Mexico Game and Fish Department approved new language at the October game commission meeting in Alamogordo that has the potential to negatively affect sportsmen.

The commission added a written permission clause to several rules so that game illegally taken on private property can be confiscated and poachers can be prosecuted for illegal hunting and possession of game.

This is a good change and is necessary to enforce our game laws. Unfortunately, the game commission refused to add the words "legally posted" to ensure that private property is posted before a sportsman can be prosecuted for illegally hunting on private property.

The current wording would allow public land hunters to be prosecuted for poaching if they unknowingly crossed onto private property, even if there was no fence or sign, even if there was a land swap or the property was marked as public on a map. The current wording exceeds the requirement for every other state trespass law and unfairly targets public land hunters. Many neighboring states, such as, MT, WY, CO states require land owners to post their property lines (Post-out keep out).

Because of this, the burden is put entirely on sportsmen. Land swaps, private in holdings and out-dated maps can sometimes lead to confusion over boundaries. It is important that if the commission holds sportsmen to a higher standard that landowners be required to follow the state rules for posting private property. Those rules are required for the state to pursue criminal trespass charges and require signs at entry points and in the case of an unfenced boundary, a sign every 500 feet.
The rule now applies to deer, elk, Oryx and antelope. There was an attempt to include small game hunting and fishing in the rule, but that language was stripped out at the last minute.
It is essential that the commission amends these new rules at the Dec. 4th meeting and add the words "legally posted" before "private property" in the written permission clauses of all hunting and fishing regulations.

Commissioners Dutch Salmon, Oscar Simpson and Sandy Buffet voted to protect sportsmen?s rights at the October meeting and asked for the language to be amended. Commissioners Tom Arvas, Jim McClintic, Leo Sims and Alfredo Montoya sided with private landowners and voted against the interests of New Mexico sportsmen.

If you hunt in New Mexico, please call Commission Chairman Tom Arvas and ask him to make this change for the good of New Mexico hunters and anglers.

Commissioner Arvas can be reached at (505) 690-0487
Commissioner Jim McClintic can be reached at (505) 271-4550
Commissioner Leo Sims can be reached at (575) 393-3024
Commissioner Alfredo Montoya can be reached at (575) 852-2551

 

[stinkystomper]

Is there any action we can take to get them out of there?

 

[1BigDeer]

RE: MT Land Posted?

I hunted MT for a LONG time and during that time landowners did not have to post their land. All people were responsible to know where they were at all times. Maybe it has changed?

 

[mtmiller]

RE: MT Land Posted?

>I hunted MT for a LONG
>time and during that time
>landowners did not have to
>post their land. All people
>were responsible to know where
>they were at all times.
> Maybe it has changed?
>
Is hasn't changed 1BigDeer, you're correct.

 

[hntbambi]

What??? Make people responsible for their actions? God forbid. I like how Virgnina does it, if you are tresspassing and its not posted you get a $500 fine. If it is posted, you get a $1500 fine. It's the hunter's responsibility to know where they are at all times.

 

[nmelktrout]

I agree hntbambi, there is way too much tresspassing going on here in NM. Hunters need to take responsibility for their actions and know where they are hunting. I'm personally sick and tired of idiots tearing down tresspassing signs and then walking onto private and claiming that they "didn't know the property was private because it wasn't posted." The way the law is currently worded this is usually a valid excuse when given to an overworked warden in the field. There needs to be more accountability on our part as hunters in order to insure that people respect boundary lines. It's frustrating when you are on public and the elk are screaming on the other side of the fenceline on private but that doesn't give anyone the right to tresspass.

Ignorance should not be a defense.

 

[mozey]

Did you guys read this part:

"The current wording would allow public land hunters to be prosecuted for poaching if they unknowingly crossed onto private property, even if there was no fence or sign, even if there was a land swap or the property was marked as public on a map."

As someone that buys the most recent maps, uses a gps, and otherwise tries to do my best to respect private property, I have a problem with the last part of that sentence. If it ain't posted, how else am I expected to know if there was a land swap made since the last map was printed? If you're going to buy ground that has traditionally been used by the public, and you don't want the public to be free to use it anymore, than it should be your responsibility to somehow inform the public that your newly acquired property is now off limits.

Also, I've had a couple of run-ins with a-holes trying to tell me that the public land I was standing on was their private property (one in WY, and one here in NM). In both cases the a-holes backed off when I pulled out a map and asked them if they had acquired the property since the BLM map I was holding was published.

 

[kysersosay]

I guess I don't really see the problem. You did a pretty good job of articulating the positive side of this regulation. I'm guessing the wording is the way it is on purpose- as it has been almost impossible to prosecute poachers for trespassing in the past. Trespassing is the most contested charge the Game Department has to prosecute because it carries with it a mandatory revocation- and the Game Wardens end up facing attorneys that have an easy time destroying the weak wording of the existing trespassing law. If any trespassing sign on the property is missing (or stolen) then it invalidates the "legally posted" threshold.

Also- in the past, if someone trespasses onto private ranch and say- kills a 400 bull elk- Even if they were caught and given tickets for trespassing- the landowners and game wardens had to stand there and watch the guy drive away with the bull because as long as they had a license for that unit, and didn't shoot it from the road, or break any other rule- there was nothing in the wording of any of the current laws and regs that made the illegal- even though they trespassed to kill it. That is just plain WRONG, and this regulation fixes that.

The truth is, it doesn't really change much- as hunters have, do, and will be responsible to know where they are and if they are supposed to be there. The deer regs are already like this. Ask the Director of the Game and Fish, he was just prosecuted for the same thing.

I say go ahead and call or write your Game Commissioners. And tell them good work.

 

[nmelktrout]

I think Kysersosay nailed it. There are too many available excuses to use in the event of tresspassing and they are used by trespassers very frequently. This proposed change in the wording fixes an old loophole that invites trespassing. While it might seem frightening to the law-abiding outdoorsman, rest assured that the purpose of tightening the language is to act as a deterrent to and means of prosecuting those that make a habit out of trespassing.

Now, if you are honestly and mistakenly caught on actual private property by virtue of having a map that shows the land as public, you will still definitely have a valid defense that an attorney, judge and game officer will take into consideration. Although our Director was apparently caught in just such a circumstance, he still admitted the fact that it was his responsibility to know where he was and that the coordinates on his GPS were in fact on land that he had no permission to hunt. While I truly hope that I am never caught on land I had mistaken for being public, you can bet that I will do absolutely everything possible to prevent this from happening. But, if I'm trespassing, I'm trespassing and I will have to face the consequences of my actions. It would be no one?s fault but my own and that is the mentality with which we need to approach our actions. The thought of it brings taking responsibility for my actions to the top of my priorities and this is never a bad thing for anyone. More sportsmen in New Mexico need to do so. I grew up in Colorado in an area where there was absolutely zero tolerance for trespassing and as a result, we rarely, if ever had to deal with it. While I pray that New Mexico never gets subdivided to the extent that Colorado is, we do need some sort of accountability that currently does not exist.

I may be jaded from my run ins with a couple of unsavory characters here, but let me tell you, watching a trespasser shoot a big bull out from under you and then drive away with the bull after pulling the ?we didn't know it was posted because there weren't any signs? excuse after crossing two well-posted fencelines really sickened me. No worse way to have opening morning of a hunt go down when you are just about to pull the trigger on a big bull after you have gotten the first primo tag of your life AND gotten permission to hunt an incredible piece of property. F&G told us there was nothing they could do as the guys claimed they crossed the fence where there were no signs. So, thanks to the way the law is currently worded, these guys were rewarded for their trespassing?

And, if you are on public land and find yourself harassed or accused of being on private when in fact you are not, immediately report whoever it is that is messing with you and file a harassment complaint. F&G does take these issues very seriously as well and I know of at least one guide in the Gila this year who is in some hot water for allegedly doing just that.

 

[hntbambi]

Yeah, I saw that part also. If I intend to hunt that close to private land, I can go to the court house and verify with the land office of what is public and what is private.

I have seen more indigenous scum here in NM that does not care about property lines, others property, littering, and a serious lack of common sence, than anywhere. I like how Virginia handles the tresspass issue. If you are caught tresspassing and its not posted, you get a $500 fine. If it is posted its $1500 fine.

And like Kysersosay mentioned, if a tresspasser shoots something, I don't care how big it is, it was taken illegally and should be handled that way.

 

[mozey]

LAST EDITED ON Oct-20-08 AT 05:55PM (MST)[p]Two posters whose opinions I respect more than most, but I'm going to disagree on this. If I remember correctly, the G&F Director lost two years of hunting privileges for his honest(?) mistake. If he had been on private land that was recently part of a land swap with public land, and didn't have any reason to believe he was trespassing, then in my mind that is way too stiff of a penalty. I used to work for the Forest Service, and I know that land swaps are fairly common, and many of those land swaps involve good hunting areas. I don't know the policy, and I'm sure it has something to do with available funds, but it seems to me that most BLM maps aren't that up-to-date. If either of you can point me to a map source that is real-time, and is easily available to the general public, than I would not have a problem with the current wording.

kysersosay, if you're talking about what I think you're talking about, I have no problem with the wording in that particular case, because the land in question is well marked on the associated BLM map, which is readily available to the general public.

nmelktrout, I had almost the exact opposite of your experience happen to me: I feel like I lost an opportunity at a nice buck that I was tracking because a couple a-holes on horses saw me, rode up and made a noisy scene, thinking they could bluff me off of their "private"-but-public hunting preserve, which I'd hiked seven miles to get to.

As for being harrassed by a-holes, the courts sound like a good solution, until you actually try to do it. T.V. is not reality. As someone who has been asked to testify as an "expert" witness many times as a professional, I do not want any part of that joke-of-a-process mixed up in my hunting life; it ain't worth it (I'm not sorry if I've offended any judges or attorneys who may be reading this... ;-)). I have a friend at work whose family hunted a particular piece of Forest Service land in central NM for a couple generations. Five years ago, some a-hole thought he could run them off because he purchased some mineral rights (the land in question was still public); even fired a couple shots over their heads. They reported him, but there wasn't anything the local "law" could do (seemed a little too much small town "good 'ol boy crap" going on to me. So my friend's family sued the a-hole in civil court and finally after four years won the suit. But the a-hole still got out of paying them anything by filing bankruptcy. The whole episode took all the fun out of hunting for my friend--he has not hunted since. Life is too short for that kind of crap.

 

[stinkystomper]

Noone ever wins in these stupid shouting matches. Now on to the next subject.

SS

 

[kysersosay]

Hey Mozey.

If you're thinking about my place up north- we've never posted or detered hunters in any way up there. Luckily for us it's hard enough to get in there. If we had a public road running through or nearby it would be a different story.

I was just speaking in generalities using circumstances I've seen repeatedly around the state.

I don't think the reg is intended as a "trap" to try and catch honest folks hunting on landswapped land. I can't imagine a Game Warden writing a trespassing ticket on an un-posted piece of land that was recently public. I do believe in a landswap situation, part of the agreement is that the newly private land has to be fenced and posted and notices put out. I do understand that landswapping makes for an issue with the reg change, but to me it's a small drawback compared to the big picture.

As far as the NMDGF Director goes, there's a bigger story there. For one- as I understand it- he was about 3 miles into a big private ranch- a miscalibrated GPS falls short of due dillegence. Plus- as a DGF employee (Director) his small mistake was concidered by almost everyone as a bigger mistake, and as such- all parties had no choice but to take it as far as they did or risk accusations of impropriety.

With this regulation, the average honest hunter needs to be careful when he's hunting country that is a matrix of private land. that's really a change for no-one except the guy who just wants to be able to pretend he's an average honest hunter and hope that pleading ignorance is enough to keep him out of trouble.

This regulation change is not a sweeping change that will relieve landowners from the necessity to post their property. The trespassing law remains the same. It just gives some much needed bite to other game laws.

As far as the A-holes so well described. There are plenty of those on all sides of all of these issues, no regulation change is going to spare us all future encounters with them.

Now my two cents is four cents- I'll give it a rest.

good luck in your cougar stand.

 

[kysersosay]

LAST EDITED ON Oct-20-08 AT 07:03PM (MST)[p]Oh and P.S. the real issue is that the trespassing law needs some changes, but laws have to be changed by the legislature, regs. can be changed by the Game Comission.

It is virtually impossible for a landowner to meet and maintain the legal threshold for "legally posted". That's why the Game Commission is resistant to using that verbage.

Now my two cents is six cents.

 

[nmelktrout]

Moze, you bring some good arguments to the table. There are some existing problems (especially land swaps) with the manner in which this proposition is worded and the lack of notice provided by the BLM regarding land swaps. And yes, I believe the director lost priveleges for two years. A frightening prospect indeed.

As for the BLM map issue, this seems to be a main problem that law-abiding outdoorsmen will have to deal with as it is not right that anyone could be charged with trespassing when they have relied on a recent BLM map that does not take a landswap into account. Maybe this would be an issue that we should bring to the forefront of our input. I know there is a large mothership map of the state showing all BLM land in the BLM's legal counsel office here in Albuquerque, but I wonder what notice is being published or otherwise made available to the public-at-large....It seems to me that there should be some sort of accountability on the part of the BLM for insuring that there is adequate notice provided, but I do not know off the top of my head where this information is made readily available. I will check with a friend in that office and get back to you guys with whatever answer I can swing. -the lack of notice from the BLM also seems to be a valid defense (loophole) available to someone caught in this predicament but again, I'd have to look further into the wording of the applicable law.

And Mozey, hearing what happened to you and your friend gets my hackles up as well. However, despite the fact that going through the legal avenues takes time and is often frustrating(the law is my reality by trade but no offense taken man), it does occasionally serve its purpose. Sounds like your friend went through one hell of an ordeal and that is truly unfortunate. But, in the realm of dealing with harassment in the field or trespassers, letting the judicial process run its course is pretty much all we can currently do. It isn't pretty when the outcome is unfavorable, but prosecutors, landowners, and law enforcement officials need stronger laws in order to enforce what is currently a rather meaningless law. Is the proposed wording the solution? Now I don't think so as you have definitely brought some valid issues to my attention. That being said, I do believe that there does need to be some tightening of the current regulation, but with language ensuring some sort of valid defense or at least requiring adequate posting or provision of notice by the BLM for lands that will be problematic. Sounds like some sportman's groups will be testifying at the legislature come the next session...

 

[cocinaelktaco]

As a land Owner/hunter, I favor the new law. And it is about time ! We have to post our ranch every year and every year we watch hunters tear down our signs and throw them down the hill, and procede to trespass only to claim that there was no sign to warn them! We would try and prosecute these people and the court would rule in their favor, under reasonable doubt of legal posting, Sound familiar to you guides and ranchers?As a result we stopped allowing hunters to go through our ranch to gain access to state lands. It also has stopped ticketing of irresponsible hunters due to a waste of time for the D.A.'s office. I would also like to see the way Virginia done that sounds fair.and posting should be painting the fence posts like Texas, it would be hard to throw the fence down the hill!
Also the problems are not always bad hunters it also is some of the guides who know they can get away with it if they was caught, $10,000 for them to poach or guide for the elk, $500.00 IF they get caught! Good business for them either way.

I would send a letter thanking the commissioners for taking the stand, It will help all of us in the long run with better relations between hunters and ranchers. and weed out the criminals!

 

[ColoradoOak]

LAST EDITED ON Oct-22-08 AT 11:58AM (MST)[p]>Many neighboring states,
>such as, MT, WY, CO
>states require land owners to
>post their property lines (Post-out
>keep out).

Neither Colorado or Wyoming require landowners to post their lands. It is the responsibility of the hunter to know the boundaries.

 

[junior]

I just finished up my sons youth hunt in 2b...we had a great time hunting deer..my son got to see several different bucks, and missed a 2 pt the last day...some things I noticed that troubled me...
I am sure you guys allready know..but NM has a huge nite poaching problem...During mid day I would check tracks going across service roads...wiping out tracks and checking again the next day...each time I would see where someone was turning around in the middle of roads, spoting the more populated area's...It wasn't just one truck either as I noticed several different tread patterns...and yes I even found empty cases in the middle of the service roads..we never actually saw someone do this..but having friends in G&F...its not rocket science to figure out whats going on there...also, to hear shots after 7:30, as we walked to the truck is a dead give away.
I thinks the checker board private/public is the only thing helping/saving NM's deer population in that area! I truly feel the pain, with the problems you guys face as residents.