Ranchers Suing NMDGF

mossback50cal

Active Member
Messages
935
I haven’t been on here in a long time, thanks to certain viewpoints. But I read an article, stating that some New Mexico ranchers are suing NMDGF for elk herds eating their grass and damaging a few fences. What are your viewpoints on this? I have one, but will wait to share it.
 

Gator

Long Time Member
Messages
17,583
That why MNDFG gives out ranch tags so they can be sold and they can make money for the damage they caused, BUT it they don't have elk damage or ranch to small they wouldn't get any money
 

OCHO

Active Member
Messages
317
What I think needs to happen is the ranchers need to be accountable for the tags they receive. I have dealt with and known ranchers will throw tags in the trash because they don’t get what they want. If your allocated several tags and don’t use or sell them. They shouldn’t have the right to complain any further and or possibly get them again.

I don’t fully buy the restitution for elk damaging property is the real reason they want or need tags. For reasons above. And some people don’t even have elk on their land and get tags. It’s fine line with it al.
 

mossback50cal

Active Member
Messages
935
I agree. I also believe this, if NMDGF has to pay for damages, which in turn will come out of our pockets, then keep your cattle off of public land. Plain and simple. I’ve seen cattle go through sections of National forest and COMPLETELY graze it out. So if they don’t want elk on their land, don’t use public land to hold your cattle.
 

Jarhead

Active Member
Messages
155
I once saw a game and fish truck in quemado with I believe two bulls hanging off the back at the gas station in town those are the days when the rancher was slaughtering them at the water holes on there land game warden said there was a bunch of dead ones still there it was this time of year.
 

roadrunner

Long Time Member
Messages
3,104
NM is a fence out state. If NM owned elk damage property and cause a legitimate financial loss some form of repayment shouldbe made.

That is what the EPlus system is for. I can see, however, a legitimate complaint if multiple elk continue to cause damage that a single cow tag cannot reclaim damages with...
 

Jarhead

Active Member
Messages
155
How is it possible to calculate financial loss when they are claiming losses every year and selling tags for big money and then don’t let hunters on when they say they will and locking gates that are supposed to be open easy to solve but would have to resort to things that get people put in prison
 

Jarhead

Active Member
Messages
155
Don’t think for second that if they are a rancher,or a guide or a hunter or they have ffl to sell and buy guns that they are actually Americans and stand for the flag and I will say they actually might vote republican but they use the system for there own financial gain and just a bunch of weak wusses hiding behind the real patriots.
 

RoughCountry

Active Member
Messages
200
E plus elk tags don’t have anything to do with damage elk cause on a landowners land its about the meaningful benefit the land has for elk. I deal with the e plus program every year.......Meaningful benefit !
 

roadrunner

Long Time Member
Messages
3,104
E plus elk tags don’t have anything to do with damage elk cause on a landowners land its about the meaningful benefit the land has for elk. I deal with the e plus program every year.......Meaningful benefit !
The land has to have benefit for elk which is why they are there to begin with. Because of that, the EPlus system is supposed to give the the ability for compensation when damage happens.
 

SLM

Active Member
Messages
102
NM is a fence out state. If NM owned elk damage property and cause a legitimate financial loss some form of repayment shouldbe made.
Not following this? If a public land grazers cattle gets on your property and destroys your wife’s flower garden, the livestock owner has zero liability.
 

smarba

Active Member
Messages
446
SLM I believe that is correct. NM law is if you don't want livestock on your property you have to build a fence to keep them out...

So if that's the case, why don't ranchers have the burden of fencing out elk? Or is the law only pertaining to livestock?
 

SLM

Active Member
Messages
102
SLM I believe that is correct. NM law is if you don't want livestock on your property you have to build a fence to keep them out...

So if that's the case, why don't ranchers have the burden of fencing out elk? Or is the law only pertaining to livestock?
I have not been able to find a definitive answer to that question. I kind of hope this case actually goes a long ways and answers a lot of these questions once and for all. From what I’ve been able to find, most (if not all) involved in the suit are small anchor properties with FS leases. Hopefully it also roots out the cause/effect of public land grazing vs private depredation. I am far from anti LO/public grazing, but it’s time to work out a lot of these issues. Sometimes suits have unintended consequences.
 

roadrunner

Long Time Member
Messages
3,104
Not following this? If a public land grazers cattle gets on your property and destroys your wife’s flower garden, the livestock owner has zero liability.
If you have a fence up and the free graze cattle tear it down, the cattle owner is not liable to replace the damaged property to protect your property?

Fence out means it's your responsibility to keep them out. If you have the barrier in place and they still damage it, there is some accountability there.

By the same token, free graze cattle behind a fence isn't the livestock owners anymore until they pay to get it out of "prison". You can impound the livestock. If they just show up with a stock trailer, that's criminal trespass...
 

SLM

Active Member
Messages
102
If you have a fence up and the free graze cattle tear it down, the cattle owner is not liable to replace the damaged property to protect your property?

Fence out means it's your responsibility to keep them out. If you have the barrier in place and they still damage it, there is some accountability there.

By the same token, free graze cattle behind a fence isn't the livestock owners anymore until they pay to get it out of "prison". You can impound the livestock. If they just show up with a stock trailer, that's criminal trespass...
Understood, if the fence meets the standard, the cattle can be trespassed. My question is, does the LO/rancher have the same responsibility to meet a “standard” in regards to wildlife?
 

SLM

Active Member
Messages
102
Try again, if I decide I don’t want/can’t afford a fence around my property for what ever reason, I can not trespass the cattle.

If a LO/producer does not want/can’t afford an elk ”proof” fence, is the state liable?
 

roadrunner

Long Time Member
Messages
3,104
If a LO/producer does not want/can’t afford an elk ”proof” fence, is the state liable?
Wildlife is not livestock, so you'd think it would fall under a different liability.

Try again, if I decide I don’t want/can’t afford a fence around my property for what ever reason, I can not trespass the cattle.

But in NM, that's irrelevant. Cattle can "trespass" because of the fence-out clause. You as the livestock owner cannot retrieve them without permission, or escort from a county sheriff if you cannot obtain the permission because you are knowingly entering private property.
 

SLM

Active Member
Messages
102
Understood, on all counts. Do you know of any case that has ruled wildlife does not fall under fence out/ “law of the land”?

None of this is meant argumentative.
 

Muleman

Active Member
Messages
243
As was said once by a wise man “ nothing works in New Mexico”. This state continues to do everything backwards from other states and we wonder why we are last in all the good categories and first in in all the bad.

Elk system is a micro-cosum of this. It’s a fence out state for cattle but not for wildlife( Jennings law). Elk LO permits issue to hunt on public land. LO sue for having wildlife on their property? Lead plaintiff is Zeno Kheine. Brother of Zane Kheine who is 2nd or 3rd largest landowner in the state. He has stupid money. And he sues the state over elk eating grass.

Just Bass Ackwards as we can get.
 
Last edited:

roadrunner

Long Time Member
Messages
3,104
As was said once by a wise man “ nothing works in New Mexico”. This state continues to do everything backwards from other states and we wonder why we are last in all the good categories and first in in all the bad.

It does, however, have the best draw system around. Just ask.
 

OCHO

Active Member
Messages
317
And how the hell does a UW tag help your ranch from getting over run with elk. Majority of ranches that get tags probably never even have a hunter actually hunt their land whether be the tag purchaser or a public hunter. Than you have ranchers that cry for about elk over running their land have their tags entered as UW and try like hell to deny access for anyone to hunt the very land they are needing elk help with. So wait... elk are over running your ranch but when the hunts on your trying to keep hunters off your land or making it harder to access to help you remove them? Is it really about your land being damaged given the above?

I get that not all people are like this but a majority of them are.
 

LIK2HNT

Very Active Member
Messages
1,178
NM must be doing something right. Residents of other states use NM as an example all the time to explain why they can/should offer Nonresident hunters less and charge more. Other states are doing it, they should to.
 

Sako300rum

Active Member
Messages
169
You should look into how the NM Fish and Game Issue these Elk tags for units that have an over estimated elk herd on private lands like unit 17. They give these ranchers rifle tags that start the 1st of October and go the whole month. They can hunt every 5 days and are issued unlimited tags. I know of certain ranches and ranches that sold these over populated private land tags on their deeded acres with no elk any where near! Talking about mucho dinero for outfitters and Fish and Game!
 

Booner

Member
Messages
61
You should look into how the NM Fish and Game Issue these Elk tags for units that have an over estimated elk herd on private lands like unit 17. They give these ranchers rifle tags that start the 1st of October and go the whole month. They can hunt every 5 days and are issued unlimited tags. I know of certain ranches and ranches that sold these over populated private land tags on their deeded acres with no elk any where near! Talking about mucho dinero for outfitters and Fish and Game!
Actually they get until 31 Dec, not just the month of Oct. The last harvest report data for unit 17 reflects a success rate of 24:35 on private land bulls and a satisfaction rating over 4.0. Seems that the folks who hunted in 17 had great success and their satisfaction ratings reflect well above average. When the data for all unit 17 hunts are viewed in the harvest report it looks like the highest success and satisfaction goes to…drumroll…private. Sounds like you have a narrative you want to push.
 
Last edited:

Gator

Long Time Member
Messages
17,583
And how the hell does a UW tag help your ranch from getting over run with elk. Majority of ranches that get tags probably never even have a hunter actually hunt their land whether be the tag purchaser or a public hunter. Than you have ranchers that cry for about elk over running their land have their tags entered as UW and try like hell to deny access for anyone to hunt the very land they are needing elk help with. So wait... elk are over running your ranch but when the hunts on your trying to keep hunters off your land or making it harder to access to help you remove them? Is it really about your land being damaged given the above?

I get that not all people are like this but a majority of them are.
Sometimes the elk aren't on their land until are the season's are over.
BUT if they get a unit wide tags it just might keep some elk ever getting to their ranch. THIS was want a GW told me several years ago why the give out the all unit wide tags.
Made sense to me back then.
 

Sako300rum

Active Member
Messages
169
So if you have 2500 acres of private deeded acres of private in unit 17 how many private land tags can be issued for that rifle oct 1- dec 31 by fish and game to that rancher who then can sell them for $7000-$10000 hunts a piece? Is there a quota? Or just a ranch code given out? Mucho dinero! For the landowners and outfitters and the fish and game! Especially when some of the private might not have elk on it for miles! Just make sure you guys do your homework on the private property and outfitters with previous hunters. Not just the stats on the fish and game website.
 

Booner

Member
Messages
61
And how the hell does a UW tag help your ranch from getting over run with elk. Majority of ranches that get tags probably never even have a hunter actually hunt their land whether be the tag purchaser or a public hunter. Than you have ranchers that cry for about elk over running their land have their tags entered as UW and try like hell to deny access for anyone to hunt the very land they are needing elk help with. So wait... elk are over running your ranch but when the hunts on your trying to keep hunters off your land or making it harder to access to help you remove them? Is it really about your land being damaged given the above?

I get that not all people are like this but a majority of them are.
Whenever I have hunted NM I have found the majority of landowners I have encountered were more than willing to accommodate. One in unit 12 even had me park in his driveway. Dogs were barking in the yard and I could hear them the whole time I was hunting. He said sit up on that hill top and overlook the water hole, the elk don’t mind the dogs barking. He was right. Said no one ever hunts it even though he was aware they had free reign on the place. It was an 80 acre chunk that folks probably disregarded but had elk on it daily. I think a vast majority are good folks and know how the program works. The last thing they want to do is get kicked out of it.
 

Booner

Member
Messages
61
So if you have 2500 acres of private deeded acres of private in unit 17 how many private land tags can be issued for that rifle oct 1- dec 31 by fish and game to that rancher who then can sell them for $7000-$10000 hunts a piece? Is there a quota? Or just a ranch code given out? Mucho dinero! For the landowners and outfitters and the fish and game! Especially when some of the private might not have elk on it for miles! Just make sure you guys do your homework on the private property and outfitters with previous hunters. Not just the stats on the fish and game website.
Stats are hard to argue with. If you have 25 or 2500 acres in the secondhand management zone you can get unlimited tags. Just like any secondary zone unit in the state, they get a ranch code. Unit 17 doesn’t have a ton of elk ground outside the primary management zone, otherwise it would probably be considered to be in the primary zone. If you are spending 10k and don’t do your homework and check references you probably deserve what you end up with. It isn’t in the LO best interest to wipe out a herd, then the folks who do their research would determine the hunt isn’t worth a nickel and they wouldn’t get any repeat, or new business.
 

Sako300rum

Active Member
Messages
169
I think the Fish and Game should monitor the tags and success rate for each Landowner and parcel of private they issue to make decisions on how to distribute unlimited tags in an entire unit! There are small landowners selling tags with no elk on their property! Face it! It’s a win win for fish and game and outfitters(landowners). Be very very careful in 17!!!!!!!
 

Booner

Member
Messages
61
I think the Fish and Game should monitor the tags and success rate for each Landowner and parcel of private they issue to make decisions on how to distribute unlimited tags in an entire unit! There are small landowners selling tags with no elk on their property! Face it! It’s a win win for fish and game and outfitters(landowners). Be very very careful in 17!!!!!!!
G&F does monitor that information. It is available through a public information request. The only * would be that it is up to the hunter to complete their harvest report for complete data. You forgot the “win” for the hunter who does their research. I would be careful anytime I am forking over a large sum of money and the little voice in the back of my head says something might not be right. There is an old saying about that. I wouldn’t limit my cautiousness to 17, you should be cautious with any RO tag unless it has a history of producing what you are after.
 

Sako300rum

Active Member
Messages
169
So your saying that there is some crookedness done with these unlimited tags and landowners/outfitters. I know for a fact that there is crookedness with certain landowners that are awarded these tags and sell them knowingly that there are no elk in their small parcels! I’m just saying they shouldn’t hand out unlimited tags in 17 to Anyone who has private in the unit!
 

Booner

Member
Messages
61
I’m not implying there is any crookedness going on with LO’ers or Outfitters. Is there? Maybe. Outfitters that are shady get highlighted pretty quick. The internet is too small of a place to hide if you are a crook in NM. There are 20 acre pieces that draw elk to them daily and 2000 acre pieces that might only see elk during a specific season. That is the game. Play at your own risk. I see nothing wrong with it if you do your due diligence. Could be wrong but I don’t see abuse with the unlimited tag deal, if there are folks who got abused they are sure quiet about it. Look to the north in 13, the 4 Daughters Ranch, they are in the secondary management zone in 13 and how many elk get shot there every year, 2, 3? How many elk get shot on the HH with their allotted 100+ bull tags? …0. These ranchers don’t want elk to disappear. Look at unit 12, there used to be no elk there, now they are loaded. Probably more dirt bag hunters out there than there are LO’s trying to sell hunts for unicorns. Only way to do away with the unlimited tag deal is to have the units primary management area redrawn, which they revisit every 4 years (I think).
 

Sako300rum

Active Member
Messages
169
The fish and game should do a thurough inspection on unit 17 on all the private on ALL areas of the unit and see if unlimited tags given to ranchers who then can sell them making well into the 6 digits (yes $100,000s for small acre parcels per year with the amount of Elk tags given out and faulty advertising with less then 2-3000 deeded acres with NO ELK around is acceptable! Trust me people are on to this! It’s a matter of time New Mexico and the out of state hunter will catch on!!! Sorry if I have some landowners business model away!
 

Booner

Member
Messages
61
The fish and game should do a thurough inspection on unit 17 on all the private on ALL areas of the unit and see if unlimited tags given to ranchers who then can sell them making well into the 6 digits (yes $100,000s for small acre parcels per year with the amount of Elk tags given out and faulty advertising with less then 2-3000 deeded acres with NO ELK around is acceptable! Trust me people are on to this! It’s a matter of time New Mexico and the out of state hunter will catch on!!! Sorry if I have some landowners business model away!
Why would they waste their time? The Secondary Management Zone (SMZ) is that area within the state where no specific elk management goals are set and licenses are available over-the-counter to hunters who possess a ranch code from a landowner who is registered with the department. You could have a ranch in 31 and get tags if you saw elk headed your way. There are no management goals. Pressure them at the Commission Meetings to adjust the PMZ boundary. Since you are not naming names you are only assisting these corrupt individuals stay in business. Or this is simply fake news.
 

tallpine13

Active Member
Messages
126
I agree. I also believe this, if NMDGF has to pay for damages, which in turn will come out of our pockets, then keep your cattle off of public land. Plain and simple. I’ve seen cattle go through sections of National forest and COMPLETELY graze it out. So if they don’t want elk on their land, don’t use public land to hold your cattle.
They lease the NF they dont just let their cattle graze it for free…..
 

delmag1942

Active Member
Messages
793
Always have wondered how all the other states out west manage without all the "complexities" that NM have in managing biggame?
 

RioHuntNutt

Active Member
Messages
764
What I think needs to happen is the ranchers need to be accountable for the tags they receive. I have dealt with and known ranchers will throw tags in the trash because they don’t get what they want. If your allocated several tags and don’t use or sell them. They shouldn’t have the right to complain any further and or possibly get them again.

I don’t fully buy the restitution for elk damaging property is the real reason they want or need tags. For reasons above. And some people don’t even have elk on their land and get tags. It’s fine line with it al.
truth!!!
 

Gator

Long Time Member
Messages
17,583
No you might want to look closer. Fire would take more Forest/Blm if it isn't grazed down. Look at the fires that are running wild right now. Guess what that forest haven't seen ANY under bush cleaned off in tons of years.
there isn't enough wildlife to graze it down like sheep and cattle does.
 

SLM

Active Member
Messages
102
Again, I’m not anti public grazing but to say cattle do not have a negative affect any many allotments is disingenuous. Lack of mechanical treatment, forest mismanagement and years of suppression are the root cause of today’s catastrophic fires, not lack of grazing.

Take a look at many meadows/parks in riparian areas, the non native thistle etc. is from overgrazing, and not by wildlife.
 

sbeard4

Member
Messages
92
I'd say both slm and gator are correct, Cattle are more likely to overgraze than wildlife. That's mismanagement. Fire is more likely to happen in devastation when there is no management
 

tallpine13

Active Member
Messages
126
We take cattle off the NF and grazing and then beef prices sky rocket because big ranches aren’t family ranches anymore they are corporate tax incentives. You take small families out of the game that get to lease these ranches and create even a bigger empire for the wealthy. This country is so hypocritical on both sides of the fence it’s getting ridiculous. We could hand somebody a million dollar check and they would complain it wasn’t cash…. Give them it in 100’s and then they would complain because they wanted 50’s and then they would complain on the taxes they have to pay for it. We make it all private land like Texas and then we complain because we can’t hunt it… wake up people….
 

mossback50cal

Active Member
Messages
935
We take cattle off the NF and grazing and then beef prices sky rocket because big ranches aren’t family ranches anymore they are corporate tax incentives. You take small families out of the game that get to lease these ranches and create even a bigger empire for the wealthy. This country is so hypocritical on both sides of the fence it’s getting ridiculous. We could hand somebody a million dollar check and they would complain it wasn’t cash…. Give them it in 100’s and then they would complain because they wanted 50’s and then they would complain on the taxes they have to pay for it. We make it all private land like Texas and then we complain because we can’t hunt it… wake up people….
Never once said stop grazing. I said you get a benefit from the federal and state government by grazing at an extremely low cost. So, since you get that benefit, don’t complain if you have to build better fences. And to whoever said forest fires are caused by not enough grazing, you have no clue what you are talking about. Before cattle, we’re there fires? YES. It is natures way of thinning the old and starting new. WE are the problem when it comes to fires. Because we stop them, do not allow them to clear the land. That is how nature works. It has for billions of years before man. I have seen first hand devastation of grazing, and have seen ranchers acting like they own public property because they have grazing cattle their. Locking fences into it. Your argument is beyond hysterical. Cattle prevent forest fires, I’ve heard it all now.
 

monsterMullet

Active Member
Messages
113
My beef with this topic is if NMGF lets them sell the tags given to LO's why can't I sell my tag/s I draw in the lottery? I understand GF is compensating them for damages but still if they can sell the tags why can't I? Maybe NMGF needs to sell the tags for the LO's and give them a set market price per tag and give them the money equal to proven damages at the end of the year. Has anyone calculated the revenue the vermejo make off the tags they get every year? Insane!
1630193436806.png

That is from GF website say vermejo gets 250 antlerless tags and 200 either sex tags.
On turner's website say they sell cow hunts for $4,000-$4,250
and $18,000-$19,000 for archery hunts.
Woah! Crazy!
 
Last edited:

mossback50cal

Active Member
Messages
935
My beef with this topic is if NMGF lets them sell the tags given to LO's why can't I sell my tag/s I draw in the lottery? I understand GF is compensating them for damages but still if they can sell the tags why can't I? Maybe NMGF needs to sell the tags for the LO's and give them a set market price per tag and give them the money equal to proven damages at the end of the year. Has anyone calculated the revenue the vermejo make off the tags they get every year? Insane!
View attachment 50930
That is from GF website say vermejo gets 250 antlerless tags and 200 either sex tags.
On turner's website say they sell cow hunts for $4,000-$4,250
and $18,000-$19,000 for archery hunts.
Woah! Crazy!
Exactly. The tags they get should cover any damages done to their property. For them to turn around and sue, knowing that we as citizens and hunters would foot the bill. That's what pisses me off about it. Tax payers would pay any award to them. People defending them have no idea how the real world works. The fact that some people are arguing about the ranchers pay to graze their cattle, shows they have no idea how much it is. They pay $1.35 per animal unit month... Which is $1.35 a month for each head of cattle plus her calf, if she has one. And it is acted like it is fair equivalent. Please tell me how you could feed a head of cattle for $1.35 a month without it.... I'll wait. Plus the watering holes and tanks that are paid for with tax payer money, on public land, that they would not have without us paying our taxes for them. Yes, without public land grazing, prices would sky rocket. My whole point on the subject was that a rancher is getting basically free grazing, that he would have to pay one hundred fold for otherwise, so do not complain about wild animals grazing their land.
 

monsterMullet

Active Member
Messages
113
Exactly. The tags they get should cover any damages done to their property. For them to turn around and sue, knowing that we as citizens and hunters would foot the bill. That's what pisses me off about it. Tax payers would pay any award to them. People defending them have no idea how the real world works. The fact that some people are arguing about the ranchers pay to graze their cattle, shows they have no idea how much it is. They pay $1.35 per animal unit month... Which is $1.35 a month for each head of cattle plus her calf, if she has one. And it is acted like it is fair equivalent. Please tell me how you could feed a head of cattle for $1.35 a month without it.... I'll wait. Plus the watering holes and tanks that are paid for with tax payer money, on public land, that they would not have without us paying our taxes for them. Yes, without public land grazing, prices would sky rocket. My whole point on the subject was that a rancher is getting basically free grazing, that he would have to pay one hundred fold for otherwise, so do not complain about wild animals grazing their land.
Sorry but I do agree with public land leases for cattle ranchers at a low cost to them. I have a lot of friends that own cattle ranches and in years where there is not much rain they pay a heavy price even with public grazing leases. It's just like farming and the subsidies the get from our tax dollars. If there wasn't any financial incentives to do something then no one would and I personally don't want my food coming from china. There are people that take advantage like the examples listed above but the ranchers I know work like dogs and if they wouldn't receive a good deal on public grazing we would be paying a $100 a steak.
 

Sako300rum

Active Member
Messages
169
It’s all about money and politics. The LO tags bring in some serious coin, if you dig deeper and research how many tags are allocated to landowners and especially in units like 17 where they will give you unlimited tags because they are managing herds! These tags are sold as hunts and make more money then cattle ranching! Especially, ranches with small deeded acres! Of course they are suing because they are losing their most profitable means of living. Not saying all of these landowners are crooked with tags and hunts but a large majority are.
 

monsterMullet

Active Member
Messages
113
The ranchers I know are in 12, 15, and 16E. All of them do ranching and other jobs to support their ranching habit because they love working cattle. I don't disagree about the scam some of these ranches are pulling with the tags, like the vermejo and a bunch in unit 53. I am have no knowledge of 17 ranches. People are people. I just don't think it's right to paint people with such a broad brush and say that the majority of ranchers are crooked. I personally bought a tag from a guy in 53 that had 4000 acres and he told be elk were there every day and did I see 1 elk in 5 days? Nope. But I also know ranches that are very hard working and would give the shirt off their backs to someone in need and they don't get many tags and don't try to.
 

Sako300rum

Active Member
Messages
169
Not ranchers, landowners who sell tags and hunts
The ranchers I know are in 12, 15, and 16E. All of them do ranching and other jobs to support their ranching habit because they love working cattle. I don't disagree about the scam some of these ranches are pulling with the tags, like the vermejo and a bunch in unit 53. I am have no knowledge of 17 ranches. People are people. I just don't think it's right to paint people with such a broad brush and say that the majority of ranchers are crooked. I personally bought a tag from a guy in 53 that had 4000 acres and he told be elk were there every day and did I see 1 elk in 5 days? Nope. But I also know ranches that are very hard working and would give the shirt off their backs to someone in need and they don't get many tags and don't try to.
 

Booner

Member
Messages
61
It’s all about money and politics. The LO tags bring in some serious coin, if you dig deeper and research how many tags are allocated to landowners and especially in units like 17 where they will give you unlimited tags because they are managing herds! These tags are sold as hunts and make more money then cattle ranching! Especially, ranches with small deeded acres! Of course they are suing because they are losing their most profitable means of living. Not saying all of these landowners are crooked with tags and hunts but a large majority are.
Portions of 17, outside the Primary Management Zone. Your issue should be with the G&F and where they draw the boundaries. If all of 17 was within a Primary Management zone, like unit 15, the tags would be limited.
 

monsterMullet

Active Member
Messages
113
These ranchers are landowners that sell the tags they get. They own 8 - 200 sections but how do you profit so much off 1-15 tags they get when they are feeding 80 - 200 head of cattle off their land. They are feeding alfalfa elk when they feed their cattle. The price of alfalfa is through the roof.
Like I said above I am sure you are right about some, I just know honest folks that don't take advantage and sue to get all they can.
 

monsterMullet

Active Member
Messages
113
The thing that has bothered me the most were landowners that receive UW tags and then lock gates and block people from hunting their land. Seen this in 16E and 21.
 

Sako300rum

Active Member
Messages
169
If you figure the price per lb of meat from a Bull or Cow Elk once a tag or hunt is sold! That’s if you are successful in harvesting! These tags and hunts have only skyrocketed! I’m just saying a lot of landowners make a lot of money from these elk! Not sure if they are ranchers, landowners, outfitters, or all of the above. But, they have to get the tags some way! A LOTTT of money is made off of Elk tags in NM.
 

monsterMullet

Active Member
Messages
113
If you figure the price per lb of meat from a Bull or Cow Elk once a tag or hunt is sold! That’s if you are successful in harvesting! These tags and hunts have only skyrocketed! I’m just saying a lot of landowners make a lot of money from these elk! Not sure if they are ranchers, landowners, outfitters, or all of the above. But, they have to get the tags some way! A LOTTT of money is made off of Elk tags in NM.
Definitely agree.
I shouldn't have to be rich to buy these tags. I can't or wont afford the crazy prices they charge! Hunting used to be a poor mans sport and a thrifty ways to obtain the best meat to be had.
 

monsterMullet

Active Member
Messages
113
Got my wife a UW cow tag in 15 for $600. That hurt but she got her first elk and about 120lbs of meat. $5 a lb for the tags and what ever it costed to get there and hunt.
Kind of funny that she drew the same hunt this year for $60.
 

couesmagnet

Active Member
Messages
346
Simple fix , do what Arizona basically does for their ranchers, which is nothing. No landowner tags to compensate for damage, just a big fat goose egg. Then any complaining or lawyer stuff falls on deaf ears. Once you give the squeaky wheel some grease it will always ask for more, and some grease is never enough. Nature of the beast!
 

monsterMullet

Active Member
Messages
113
Problem with that is all the elk and deer seem to know when hunting seasons start and when you go to hunt them they are standing on private smiling at you.
 

tallpine13

Active Member
Messages
126
Portions of 17, outside the Primary Management Zone. Your issue should be with the G&F and where they draw the boundaries. If all of 17 was within a Primary Management zone, like unit 15, the tags would be limited.
I feel like unit 34 is the worst about this with being outside of the core management area….. their is A LOT! Of elk outside of that management area and a couple certain outfitters get a bunch of tags because of it….
 

monsterMullet

Active Member
Messages
113
Portions of 17, outside the Primary Management Zone. Your issue should be with the G&F and where they draw the boundaries. If all of 17 was within a Primary Management zone, like unit 15, the tags would be limited.
You have a good point. I just looked at the primary and special landowner tag list and 17 and 34 are in the primary. Special has mostly 55a and 46 in it. Am I missing something?
https://www.wildlife.state.nm.us/hunting/maps/elk-private-lands/hunters/
 

Booner

Member
Messages
61
You have a good point. I just looked at the primary and special landowner tag list and 17 and 34 are in the primary. Special has mostly 55a and 46 in it. Am I missing something?
https://www.wildlife.state.nm.us/hunting/maps/elk-private-lands/hunters/
You want to be looking at Primary/Secondary. But Secondary and Special are pretty much the same for this conversation. Next time it comes up at the Game Commission review (every 4 years) be vocal about it. Unit 12 in its entirety went from outside the COER (old verbiage of what they call Primary now) to being entirely within the Primary zone.
 

Booner

Member
Messages
61

monsterMullet

Active Member
Messages
113
You want to be looking at Primary/Secondary. But Secondary and Special are pretty much the same for this conversation. Next time it comes up at the Game Commission review (every 4 years) be vocal about it. Unit 12 in its entirety went from outside the COER (old verbiage of what they call Primary now) to being entirely within the Primary zone.
Didn't MLG replace the game commission or was that something else? NM government doesn't seem to hear anything from people that don't agree with them including G&F since MLG got in there. I tried talking to martin heinie and other dems and I asked questions to some of the admin people at G&F but it just seems to go nowhere or if you didn't vote for them they are not available.
 

mossback50cal

Active Member
Messages
935
Sorry but I do agree with public land leases for cattle ranchers at a low cost to them. I have a lot of friends that own cattle ranches and in years where there is not much rain they pay a heavy price even with public grazing leases. It's just like farming and the subsidies the get from our tax dollars. If there wasn't any financial incentives to do something then no one would and I personally don't want my food coming from china. There are people that take advantage like the examples listed above but the ranchers I know work like dogs and if they wouldn't receive a good deal on public grazing we would be paying a $100 a steak.
I agree with them as well. Not what I said. Said that the break they get more than covers any damage done by wild animals.
 

monsterMullet

Active Member
Messages
113
I agree with them as well. Not what I said. Said that the break they get more than covers any damage done by wild animals.
I must have misunderstood your meaning. Ranchers I know have their deeded land and then lease public or private land for grazing(They pay for this). I wasn't relating the two as covering costs for their private land damage.
 

Booner

Member
Messages
61
Didn't MLG replace the game commission or was that something else? NM government doesn't seem to hear anything from people that don't agree with them including G&F since MLG got in there. I tried talking to martin heinie and other dems and I asked questions to some of the admin people at G&F but it just seems to go nowhere or if you didn't vote for them they are not available.
I have emailed the entire commission a few times. Usually hear back from 2-3 of them. MLG did replace them but I don’t think much changed.
 

Dumdum

Member
Messages
10
Problem with that is all the elk and deer seem to know when hunting seasons start and when you go to hunt them they are standing on private smiling at you.
Exactly! The elk and deer are damn smart. I’m in unit 46 (100% private land) and adjacent to two big ranches that cater to upscale hunters. As soon as hunt season starts we see lots of elk and deer on the property. And “hunters “ trespassing even though our place is posted.
 

monsterMullet

Active Member
Messages
113
We bought a cow tag near Tecolote in 46. Saw elk up to the hunt and after the hunt started they were across the road at patrick swayzie's ranch. The elk bulls were fighting with the bovine bulls. Another time I was at a friends place in Mesa, co and he has 20 acres of alfalfa next to public land. The night before the archery deer started he said watch in the morning there will be hunters on his land trying to shoot the deer in his field. Sure enough saw 2 different sets of people doing this first morning. His land is posted very clearly.
 

mossback50cal

Active Member
Messages
935
I must have misunderstood your meaning. Ranchers I know have their deeded land and then lease public or private land for grazing(They pay for this). I wasn't relating the two as covering costs for their private land damage.
I understand why they get the cheap cost to graze. But you cannot have the best of both worlds. They pay 1.35 per head of cattle per month, states that very clearly on blm, state and federal websites. If they couldn't do that, they would have to either buy more land, or pay for feed for the cattle. That would equate to a heck of a lot more than 1.35 a month per head. It is estimated to cost $900 a year to feed a head of cattle. so 1.35, compared to 75 a head. Huge difference there. Let's say a rancher has 100 cattle. They are saving over $7000 a year on feed by grazing public land. I have seen areas in national forest that are separated by fence, one side grazed, the other not. The grazed side is completely barren, with no grass or small vegetation. Ungrazed side is grown up. That is why I say the grazing can hurt the land. If it is done properly, and rotated, it will be ok. But when you have a rancher who just allows them to roam and completely take over an area, it is not. I have also been on an elk hunt in 17, on the west side of the mountains. Scouted my butt off to find elk, and the first day of the hunt, cattle drive directly through the area we were hunting. Asked one of the hands why they were doing it during a hunt, and he straight told me that they wanted to ruin it, because the road crossed their property, and they didnt want anyone back there. The next year, the public road was locked. Called Game and Fish, and they "had no one to go look, but will look into it." Stated that the road should be open, and they get that a lot all around the state. Also, a lot of these ranchers who receive unit wide tags, do not allow the public to hunt on their land, which they are required to. So, there are some good ranchers, but the majority I have run into in the field think they own the public land, and no one can use it but them. One near Cruces tried to chase me off of BLM land, stated it was his cattle ranch. Pulled up onx, and showed him it showed BLM. He tried to argue and said he leased it to graze his cattle. I laughed, he called the sheriff and they told him he did not own the land. That I had every right to be there. Of course, it ruined my evening quail hunt, but I decided I am not giving in to these people who think they own everything. I am fighting to use my public land. No more turning the other cheek.
 
Last edited:

ElkHunterNM

Member
Messages
71
I understand why they get the cheap cost to graze. But you cannot have the best of both worlds. They pay 1.35 per head of cattle per month, states that very clearly on blm, state and federal websites. If they couldn't do that, they would have to either buy more land, or pay for feed for the cattle. That would equate to a heck of a lot more than 1.35 a month per head. It is estimated to cost $900 a year to feed a head of cattle. so 1.35, compared to 75 a head. Huge difference there. Let's say a rancher has 100 cattle. They are saving over $7000 a year on feed by grazing public land. I have seen areas in national forest that are separated by fence, one side grazed, the other not. The grazed side is completely barren, with no grass or small vegetation. Ungrazed side is grown up. That is why I say the grazing can hurt the land. If it is done properly, and rotated, it will be ok. But when you have a rancher who just allows them to roam and completely take over an area, it is not. I have also been on an elk hunt in 17, on the west side of the mountains. Scouted my butt off to find elk, and the first day of the hunt, cattle drive directly through the area we were hunting. Asked one of the hands why they were doing it during a hunt, and he straight told me that they wanted to ruin it, because the road crossed their property, and they didnt want anyone back there. The next year, the public road was locked. Called Game and Fish, and they "had no one to go look, but will look into it." Stated that the road should be open, and they get that a lot all around the state. Also, a lot of these ranchers who receive unit wide tags, do not allow the public to hunt on their land, which they are required to. So, there are some good ranchers, but the majority I have run into in the field think they own the public land, and no one can use it but them. One near Cruces tried to chase me off of BLM land, stated it was his cattle ranch. Pulled up onx, and showed him it showed BLM. He tried to argue and said he leased it to graze his cattle. I laughed, he called the sheriff and they told him he did not own the land. That I had every right to be there. Of course, it ruined my evening quail hunt, but I decided I am not giving in to these people who think they own everything. I am fighting to use my public land. No more turning the other cheek.
I had access issues with an antelope hunt this year. Not just a problem with elk and deer hunting. We have millions of state land that can’t be accessed via public roads. But the rancher leasing the grass has access. Very frustrating 🤬
 

monsterMullet

Active Member
Messages
113
I understand why they get the cheap cost to graze. But you cannot have the best of both worlds. They pay 1.35 per head of cattle per month, states that very clearly on blm, state and federal websites. If they couldn't do that, they would have to either buy more land, or pay for feed for the cattle. That would equate to a heck of a lot more than 1.35 a month per head. It is estimated to cost $900 a year to feed a head of cattle. so 1.35, compared to 75 a head. Huge difference there. Let's say a rancher has 100 cattle. They are saving over $7000 a year on feed by grazing public land. I have seen areas in national forest that are separated by fence, one side grazed, the other not. The grazed side is completely barren, with no grass or small vegetation. Ungrazed side is grown up. That is why I say the grazing can hurt the land. If it is done properly, and rotated, it will be ok. But when you have a rancher who just allows them to roam and completely take over an area, it is not. I have also been on an elk hunt in 17, on the west side of the mountains. Scouted my butt off to find elk, and the first day of the hunt, cattle drive directly through the area we were hunting. Asked one of the hands why they were doing it during a hunt, and he straight told me that they wanted to ruin it, because the road crossed their property, and they didnt want anyone back there. The next year, the public road was locked. Called Game and Fish, and they "had no one to go look, but will look into it." Stated that the road should be open, and they get that a lot all around the state. Also, a lot of these ranchers who receive unit wide tags, do not allow the public to hunt on their land, which they are required to. So, there are some good ranchers, but the majority I have run into in the field think they own the public land, and no one can use it but them. One near Cruces tried to chase me off of BLM land, stated it was his cattle ranch. Pulled up onx, and showed him it showed BLM. He tried to argue and said he leased it to graze his cattle. I laughed, he called the sheriff and they told him he did not own the land. That I had every right to be there. Of course, it ruined my evening quail hunt, but I decided I am not giving in to these people who think they own everything. I am fighting to use my public land. No more turning the other cheek.
I agree with everything you said there. Had a "rancher" put a cable across a public road we were driving on a hunt in 21. I started to move it so I could drive through and he drove up at started screaming at me that it was his land. Couldn't call anyone and they wouldn't do anything about it anyways but man that made me mad. Just didn't want the kids see me shoot someone or get shot so just had to lump it and move on. funny the next year saw someone complaining about the same dude on one of these hunting forums.
 

Booner

Member
Messages
61
I understand why they get the cheap cost to graze. But you cannot have the best of both worlds. They pay 1.35 per head of cattle per month, states that very clearly on blm, state and federal websites. If they couldn't do that, they would have to either buy more land, or pay for feed for the cattle. That would equate to a heck of a lot more than 1.35 a month per head. It is estimated to cost $900 a year to feed a head of cattle. so 1.35, compared to 75 a head. Huge difference there. Let's say a rancher has 100 cattle. They are saving over $7000 a year on feed by grazing public land. I have seen areas in national forest that are separated by fence, one side grazed, the other not. The grazed side is completely barren, with no grass or small vegetation. Ungrazed side is grown up. That is why I say the grazing can hurt the land. If it is done properly, and rotated, it will be ok. But when you have a rancher who just allows them to roam and completely take over an area, it is not. I have also been on an elk hunt in 17, on the west side of the mountains. Scouted my butt off to find elk, and the first day of the hunt, cattle drive directly through the area we were hunting. Asked one of the hands why they were doing it during a hunt, and he straight told me that they wanted to ruin it, because the road crossed their property, and they didnt want anyone back there. The next year, the public road was locked. Called Game and Fish, and they "had no one to go look, but will look into it." Stated that the road should be open, and they get that a lot all around the state. Also, a lot of these ranchers who receive unit wide tags, do not allow the public to hunt on their land, which they are required to. So, there are some good ranchers, but the majority I have run into in the field think they own the public land, and no one can use it but them. One near Cruces tried to chase me off of BLM land, stated it was his cattle ranch. Pulled up onx, and showed him it showed BLM. He tried to argue and said he leased it to graze his cattle. I laughed, he called the sheriff and they told him he did not own the land. That I had every right to be there. Of course, it ruined my evening quail hunt, but I decided I am not giving in to these people who think they own everything. I am fighting to use my public land. No more turning the other cheek.
There is a hunter harassment law on the books. Turn on your phone video and record it. Turn them in. Also, if there is a UW landowner that is not allowing public hunters do the same thing. They will get kicked out of EPLUS. They can lock a gate, that isn’t not allowing access. Actually, I prefer the ones that do lock a gate. It deters the road hunters and the elk tend to stay on the place. They just can’t lock a gate and then unlock it to drive back and hunt themselves. Trust the EPLUS maps and OnX, push any issue you come across that is against the rules.
 

monsterMullet

Active Member
Messages
113
There is a hunter harassment law on the books. Turn on your phone video and record it. Turn them in. Also, if there is a UW landowner that is not allowing public hunters do the same thing. They will get kicked out of EPLUS. They can lock a gate, that isn’t not allowing access. Actually, I prefer the ones that do lock a gate. It deters the road hunters and the elk tend to stay on the place. They just can’t lock a gate and then unlock it to drive back and hunt themselves. Trust the EPLUS maps and OnX, push any issue you come across that is against the rules.
I tried to show this guy the GPS with OnX showing the road and land was public but he said he didn't care.
 

mossback50cal

Active Member
Messages
935
Gator, that is true. But, those are the ones you do not run into while out hunting for the most part. The only rancher I have run into that was helpful was also in 17. A few years later, shot an elk in the forest at the bottom of a huge canyon. No roads into it except for through the ranch, which were private. As we were quartering it out, someone from the ranch came through asking us how it was going. Now, we were a good five miles from the boundary, and at first thought they were going to try to harass us. Quite the opposite! The gentlemen helped us quarter the elk and loaded it on his quad and met us at the road on the other side of our property. He asked for nothing in return, but I couldn't do that. Gave him some backstrap steaks. He was more than happy. Saved us about a half mile climb straight up out of that canyon. Plus the extra three miles to the truck. We had to walk it still, but without hundreds of pounds of meat. I have run into a few nice ones. But none like that. Most are mad that you are anywhere near their land.
But, I have called NMDGF on locked gates, get the same story. No one able to make it out there, that they will look into it and nothing changes. And the one time that I stated about, the sheriff came and did nothing to him. simply told him we didn't have to get off of the public land.
 

ElkHunterNM

Member
Messages
71
I wonder how many people have actually be convicted of hunter harassment in New Mexico ? Everyone has a story about being harassed, I wonder how many have called in about it. I have a friend that had his two young girls with him on their cow hunt that had a scary situation with a private landowner blocking a forest road in Northern New Mexico. NM state police called, forest service law enforcement called, NM game and fish called. Nothing done. What a travesty to the law abiding citizens of New Mexico.

I too have have good and bad situations with private landowners. I have a landowner give my daughter access to his land and took us directly to a cow elk. He field dressed the elk and loaded it in my truck. He said he had a soft spot for kids hunting. Many of the bad situations, landowners have said many idiots messed it up for everyone long ago. Being a Norteno I generally emphasize with them.
 

monsterMullet

Active Member
Messages
113
I wonder how many people have actually be convicted of hunter harassment in New Mexico ? Everyone has a story about being harassed, I wonder how many have called in about it. I have a friend that had his two young girls with him on their cow hunt that had a scary situation with a private landowner blocking a forest road in Northern New Mexico. NM state police called, forest service law enforcement called, NM game and fish called. Nothing done. What a travesty to the law abiding citizens of New Mexico.

I too have have good and bad situations with private landowners. I have a landowner give my daughter access to his land and took us directly to a cow elk. He field dressed the elk and loaded it in my truck. He said he had a soft spot for kids hunting. Many of the bad situations, landowners have said many idiots messed it up for everyone long ago. Being a Norteno I generally emphasize with them.
That's awesome! My son has asked permission in 15 and 16d and some let him and some didn't. Figure it's their land they bought it. There are a few landowners that have a soft spot for kids in 16d and they love when kids ask and they are generous. We have also had my son told no because every time they let people hunt on their land the neighbors call law enforcement and then there is a big investigation and it's not worth the trouble.
 

Dumdum

Member
Messages
10
... ... landowners have said many idiots messed it up for everyone long ago. Being a Norteno I generally emphasize with them.
Years ago, before I posted my property “no trespassing “, I happened to be out in front of my house early morning and a truck with four excited hunters came roaring up to me. The driver breathlessly told me they were chasing an elk they had wounded and it had come on our place and by law he didn’t need my permission but out of courtesy he was asking.
I hesitated about 1/10th of a second and said, sure go ahead and told him how to continue past the compound to the back of the property. I wasn’t about to argue the finer points of the law with him!
 

BrianID

Very Active Member
Messages
1,763
I've had at least a dozen encounters with NM ranchers and landowners in the last 5 years and everyone of them have been positive. It is really sad that there are some hunters and landowners that ruin it for everyone else. Just like every other area of life, there are a few bad people that make like difficult for the rest of us.
 

Dumdum

Member
Messages
10
This new season seems worse than usual, twice in the last week I’ve seen signs of vehicles trespassing and driving off our road towards tree line. Maybe scouting and/or would be poaching???
We are posted no trespassing.
 

mossback50cal

Active Member
Messages
935
This is true. There are bad hunters just like bad everything. Not saying that I do not understand why some ranchers are the way they are. Just look at our land, trashed. Four wheelers going wherever they choose. But, not all of us are like that. I am very respectful until the same is not given back.
 

Sako300rum

Active Member
Messages
169
How do NM hunters know of which landowners are part of the SHARE program, allowing public land hunters on their property? Is there a list online? Just would like to know if this is public and where these huntable acres can be accessed??
 

Sako300rum

Active Member
Messages
169
Interesting! I looked at some private land in unit 17 on a cattle ranch where they get unit wide mature bull tags, unit wide cow tags, and bow tags. Not only do they get a handful of these unit wide tags they can sell to public for $$$$$$. They can also have unlimited!!!!! YES Unlimited!!!! either sex tags RIFLE HUNTS, even though it’s a bow muzzleloader unit to the public land hunter, offered from October 1st - December 31 for this overpopulation unit of overwhelming elk. If a guy wanted to make a good living raising cattle and selling elk hunts or tags, just take a look at private properties in 17 and how they can raise cattle (even though they will ***** and say elk are the reason for no food, water resources sell unit wide tags, private land tags, and unlimited Rifle tags for a primitive weapon zone.
 

Booner

Member
Messages
61
Interesting! I looked at some private land in unit 17 on a cattle ranch where they get unit wide mature bull tags, unit wide cow tags, and bow tags. Not only do they get a handful of these unit wide tags they can sell to public for $$$$$$. They can also have unlimited!!!!! YES Unlimited!!!! either sex tags RIFLE HUNTS, even though it’s a bow muzzleloader unit to the public land hunter, offered from October 1st - December 31 for this overpopulation unit of overwhelming elk. If a guy wanted to make a good living raising cattle and selling elk hunts or tags, just take a look at private properties in 17 and how they can raise cattle (even though they will ***** and say elk are the reason for no food, water resources sell unit wide tags, private land tags, and unlimited Rifle tags for a primitive weapon
You must be looking at a ranch that has property in both the primary and secondary zones. You’re blurring the lines and trying to lump it into one big pile in order to try and push a narrative. Parts of 17 are treated no different than elk in 47, others parts are like all of unit 15. Big unit with different objectives.
 

Sako300rum

Active Member
Messages
169
You must be looking at a ranch that has property in both the primary and secondary zones. You’re blurring the lines and trying to lump it into one big pile in order to try and push a narrative. Parts of 17 are treated no different than elk in 47, others parts are like all of unit 15. Big unit with different objectives.
No I’m pretty sure my narrative is accurate! Actually hunted this private ranch a couple times over the past years. When I saw they were booking hunters every consecutive week starting October 1st with the management rifle tags, but also offered unit wide bull tags in 17, I scratched my head!!!!! I’m sure unit 17 isn’t the only unit doing this. Or else there is something shady going on!!!
 

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

World class public and private land big game hunts. Rifle, muzzleloader and archery hunts available.

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

Desert Meadow Outfitters

Public land hunting within the Gila National Forest and beyond. Elk, deer and aoudad.

Top Bottom