Benefits of E Plus

N

NM high country

Active Member
Messages
126
I’ve been turkey hunting this week and have noticed all the dirt water tanks are bone dry. I’ve seen a lot of elk at these drinkers over the years but it’s been a long time since they’ve held any water. I’ve gotten to know a few eplus elk landowners over time and I’m allowed to turkey hunt on some of them and they all have water. Without the water that the eplus program provides not only for elk but all wildlife it would be very, very tough on them all.
It’s a great program and I’m glad our NM elk herds can benefit so much from it.
IMG_2244.jpeg
IMG_2243.jpeg
IMG_2238.jpeg


IMG_2248.jpeg
 
Awesome post.

Here is an EPLUS property I hunt with water right now as well. The 1st pic was two nights ago.

This water would not exist without EPLUS. It was installed last year so a ranch could increase the ranch score due to the EPLUS scoring system that values better habitat.

The only water I know of on the surface in the area, for miles, is either ranching or EPLUS related

Screenshot_20240427_234053.jpg


20240330_135549.jpg
 
I will be turkey hunting a different unit next week too. It is in EPLUS and you can bet we will be within a reasonable range of that water...as all animals need it.
 
I wonder how many ranchers actually drill water wells or run water lines or install storage tanks with drinkers for anything other than cattle.

And if some actually do what the returns are on the improvements.
 
priley said:
I wonder how many ranchers actually drill water wells or run water lines or install storage tanks with drinkers for anything other than cattle.

And if some actually do what the returns are on the improvements.
Click to expand...
I know several that have. It improves the chances of getting tags and improves value of property as far as objective values. The subjective value is improving habitat and helping wildlife. Not a doubt in my mind wildlife in NM would be in a worse place without the E plus system at least in me more arid parts of the state.
 
It isn't just ranchers either. A lot of property is owned by people that just want to elk hunt.

The example I posted, that water was specifically put in for elk. The property orginially scored a 7 in EPLUS. The bare minimum to qualify for tags.

1st a $50k ish well was installed, then several thousand in drinkers and water lines were added. This moved the score to a 9 which increases the chance to draw tags in the EPLUS pool. Cattle have been completely removed from this property.

A property just north and west did the exact same thing for same reasons. Different owners on those..also only elk hunters, not ranchers.

Another eplus property two or three parcels north of that all did the same.

A neighboring property to the northeast is adding a well now.

In the neighboring unit. I know of a property where the rancher sold a part of his ranch and there was a dirt tank and broken solar well and dry drinkers.

A elk hunter came in, bought a nice piece of ground out of the original ranch, bought rights to that broken well, paid to fix that solar well and ran water lines to the dirt tank. Now that dirt tank is fed new water daily. That dirt tank will not go dry going forward.

Same property also added drinkers on the new property and fixed the drinkers on the ranch the land was divided out of.

Unit directly south, I currently know another landowner in process of adding a well and drinkers to another minimally qualified ranch. Same thing, doing it to increase scores and better improve odds of drawing and of drawing bulls.

Most of these properties are Unitwide. So the public tag holder has access to most of this...a couple are ranch only. Unit wide acres in these examples add up to around 1200-1300 acres everyone can hunt.
 
Bulldawg87 said:
It isn't just ranchers either. A lot of property is owned by people that just want to elk hunt.

The example I posted, that water was specifically put in for elk. The property orginially scored a 7 in EPLUS. The bare minimum to qualify for tags.

1st a $50k ish well was installed, then several thousand in drinkers and water lines were added. This moved the score to a 9 which increases the chance to draw tags in the EPLUS pool. Cattle have been completely removed from this property.

A property just north and west did the exact same thing for same reasons. Different owners on those..also only elk hunters, not ranchers.

Another eplus property two or three parcels north of that all did the same.

A neighboring property to the northeast is adding a well now.

In the neighboring unit. I know of a property where the rancher sold a part of his ranch and there was a dirt tank and broken solar well and dry drinkers.

A elk hunter came in, bought a nice piece of ground out of the original ranch, bought rights to that broken well, paid to fix that solar well and ran water lines to the dirt tank. Now that dirt tank is fed new water daily. That dirt tank will not go dry going forward.

Same property also added drinkers on the new property and fixed the drinkers on the ranch the land was divided out of.

Unit directly south, I currently know another landowner in process of adding a well and drinkers to another minimally qualified ranch. Same thing, doing it to increase scores and better improve odds of drawing and of drawing bulls.

Most of these properties are Unitwide. So the public tag holder has access to most of this...a couple are ranch only. Unit wide acres in these examples add up to around 1200-1300 acres everyone can hunt.
Click to expand...
Thats a lot of wells and drinkers for 1200 acres when one drinker would be plenty.
 
priley said:
Thats a lot of wells and drinkers for 1200 acres when one drinker would be plenty.
Click to expand...
This isnt 1200+ acres that is grouped together.

The main one mentioned is a mile or more from the neighoring ones. Two tracts here make up about 700 acres in unit wide. With other non accessible properties in the middle. 400+ acres in one spot and 300+ in the other.

Then go a couple more miles and a couple neighors north has some water too in EPLUS

The property with the repaired well is 20 miles in a straight line from the 1st mentioned project. 300+ acres unit wide

The next is 18 miles south of the last. 160 acres unit wide.

That is a lot of water spread around a region with almost no natural surface water otherwise, due to EPLUS and it's structure to encourage habitat development.

And you could kill elk on every single one of those during the season.
 
Last edited:
priley said:
Thats a lot of wells and drinkers for 1200 acres when one drinker would be plenty.
Click to expand...
Cattle will be hurting if they only have access to only one water tank on 1200 acres. Especially when the temps hit 100 and it hasn’t rained in 6 months.

Most drinkers are put in for livestock that elk, deer, antelope, bear and every other type of wildlife use here in the dry south west.
 
NM high country said:
Cattle will be hurting if they only have access to only one water tank on 1200 acres. Especially when the temps hit 100 and it hasn’t rained in 6 months.

Most drinkers are put in for livestock that elk, deer, antelope, bear and every other type of wildlife use here in the dry south west.
Click to expand...
Yep, on 1280 acres, two sections of land, If that well was in the front of one section. That would be pretty much 2 miles to the back of the second section.

If it was narrower land than an equal 1x1 sq/mi section, that water could be even further for cattle...and / or all other animals.

No way that is supplying all the needed water to all the animals around...without a significant pipeline

It is a good thing to have more water spread around for sure.
 
NM high country said:
Cattle will be hurting if they only have access to only one water tank on 1200 acres. Especially when the temps hit 100 and it hasn’t rained in 6 months.

Most drinkers are put in for livestock that elk, deer, antelope, bear and every other type of wildlife use here in the dry south west.
Click to expand...
The only time one drinker per two sections isn't more than enough water is when the drinker is dry.
 
priley said:
Bulldawg10 said:
Yep, on 1280 acres, two sections of land, If that well was in the front of one section. That would be pretty much 2 miles to the back of the second section.

If it was narrower land than an equal 1x1 sq/mi section, that water could be even further for cattle...and / or all other animals.

No way that is supplying all the needed water to all the animals around...without a significant pipeline

It is a good thing to have more water spread around for sure.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Most people want fat cattle that don’t have to walk miles for water every day. One water source on 1200 acres isn’t good ! This rancher spent a lot of money putting in a 11/4 inch poly pipe water line to a new tank almost a mile underground so it wouldn’t freeze up in the winter and the cattle don’t spend half a day walking to water. Cheaper than drilling a new well but still over $25,000
F047132E-F2BE-4E82-B3F6-82E7AAA1E00A.png
 
I know quit a few ranchers that will be interested to know they don’t have enough waters per MM.
 
The conversation isn't really about cattle. Easier to access / more water is of course better for all animals.

But @priley you are the one trying to dismiss what good EPLUS is doing. Just like my example above when you tried to group miles and miles of seperation of water sources from my example and then group them into 1200 continuous acerage...and I am talking about water developments for wildlife that have little to nothing to do with cattle, much of which is on cattle free acerage, spead across numerous units.

@NM high country is showing bone dry dirt tanks...thank goodness for the water created by ranchers and hunters. EPLUS helps create a ton more water

Everything benefits from more water...cattle, elk, birds. That is about the most basic fact of life. Especially where little exist, like NM...not sure why you are even arguing that?

Even if a cow does/can walk 2 miles to water every day, having a source on the opposite side of that 2 miles isn't a good thing? Of course it is...and it helps keep animals distributed across the landscape, wild or domestic.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely perfect example of why EPLUS works in favor of the wildlife and why it is in our best interest to protect and foster these kinds of agreements with landowners. The habitat that NM ranchers are providing for wildlife at this time of year is critical. Obviously, wildlife will find a water source on public land to use, but I think we all agree that a landscape with wildlife evenly distributed across it is far better. My family has been developing the habitat on our property as well because of the way the EPLUS system works. We are no longer in the cattle business, sad to say, so the improvements are solely for the benefit of the wildlife. Of course, this all stems from the value of the landowner authorizations we receive, but I promise that no one would go to work every day for free either. Not all areas of the state are the same, landowners provide critical habitat at different times of year from unit to unit, but it's safe to say they are an important piece to wildlife management across the west.
 
Obviously there will never be full agreement on this subject. I don’t think anyone can honestly say that some LO’s are not a great asset to wildlife, but at what expense is where the lines get drawn.

Is piping water less than 1/2 mile from a public ground spring to deeded worth a $10,000 MB authorization when it was piped to supply water to horses?

Where does the consumption of natural water on public ground by public grazing fit in? ( no, I'm not anti public land grazing)

When a flowing water way flows up stream and down stream of private for miles on public, should a LO receive water points?

We are all guilty of cherry picking what fits our agendas. I could post numerous properties that do not have “meaningful benefit” as posted above. You would think as a whole, hunters and LO’s could come to a middle ground, but we as hunters cant even agree what is “right”.
 
smarba said:
SLM, I agree. There are some LO that provide benefit, others not so much. I've also seen drinkers turned off when cattle aren't around, so yes there may be some benefit to wildlife when cattle are there, but other times of the year na
Click to expand...

What about the larger RO properties using water/pasture rotation as a means of baiting/holding wildlife during the fall, especially in dryer years. I know of 2 wells on public that are shut off every year around 8/1 like clock work. Anyone that has hunted central NM much should know exactly where I’m talking.

Again, I am not by any means anti LO. There is 1 LO that catches a bunch of hell, but has done way more towards wildlife than anyone I have seen. Is he capitalizing on those investments? Absolutely, as he should. Are we as hunters capitalizing as well? Absolutely. Would he still be able to capitalize on his dollars if E-Plus went away, or was totally redone? Absolutely.
 
Ropinfool said:
EPLUS isn't all bad, but it definitely needs to be re-worked.
Click to expand...
I think slightly tweaked maybe. 95% of it is very good.

Maybe 1 to 3% of small ranches still need to be removed. The vast majority are good ground.

Make the unitwide properties score higher to encourage more ranches to choose unit wide to open up more land to everyone.

It certainly does way more good than not, exactly how it works today.
 
No way I could agree with your 95%. E-plus needs an overhaul to make it more equitable to some of the SCR as well. SCR needs completely eliminated.

The SCR formula is not equitable to some properties that are a big benefit to wildlife, but are put into SCR due to the formula. A Property we know well as well the owner, is in SCR with +/- 1,500.
The property has 3 year round water sources and has resident elk year round, while a larger property 2 miles as the crow flies has only seasonal water and migratory elk. I know quit a few LO’s that agree E-Plus needs to be reworked.

This will ruffle some feathers, but is not pointed at anyone particular. IME, the ardent supporters of E-Plus benefit from the program on a regular basis, either monetarily, or by opportunity.

The majority of people I have talked to that want change, but not elimination, recognize that private ground plays a pivotal role, but feel the program has morphed into something it never should have become.

The full on elimination people have fallen for the, “they will draw a bunch more tags” with it eliminated.

Nothing wrong with any of the above, but it helps to understand motive.
 
There is no way you can adjust E+ to make it equitable to all LO. It’s not perfect but no system Is going to be. most units there is more ranch sign ups that LO tags available. Most of it is acre driven meaning more land more opportunity for tags. You can slice pie a hundred different way and it’s still the same amount. Used to be base properties got the lion share of tags but now SCR get the most. Now base property are mad, SCR happier everyone in the middle not happy. So how do you tweak it that it works better.
 
SLM said:
I know quit a few ranchers that will be interested to know they don’t have enough waters per MM.
Click to expand...
on 1200 acres in dryhot southern NM and only having one water source will not make it.what if the source dries up, the pump goes out and no one is there all week, the well goes dry the cattle would have to walk too far. Not good and I don’t know any cattle men that would only have one tank on that many acres. No water for a week and those cattle are dead.
 
There are many places where there's only one water source per 1200 acres for livestock and yes wells go down, water lines bust, float in the tank fails and drains the storage.
When this happens you get off your ass and start hauling water or moving cattle.

More water sources would be ideal but here in NM you don't always have more options.
 
priley said:
There are many places where there's only one water source per 1200 acres for livestock and yes wells go down, water lines bust, float in the tank fails and drains the storage.
When this happens you get off your ass and start hauling water or moving cattle.

More water sources would be ideal but here in NM you don't always have more options.
Click to expand...
Which is the point of EPLUS and how it works...in regards to your last sentence.

In that scenario, you put in more water, then you register a habitat improvement as a land owner. You get a new habitat incentive tag that is only good for 3 years, which falls away after 3 years. If the landowner is lucky, the tag sales cover 1/2 the well cost. Maybe it fully covers a pipeline instead.

The land owner gets 3 years of revenue, the animals...elk, cattle, deer, birds, etc get water a long ways from the 1st source for years to come.

Paid for and installed by private dollars, no taxes needed.

More animals can now evenly distribute across a couple more miles of ground here.
 
Muleman said:
There is no way you can adjust E+ to make it equitable to all LO. It’s not perfect but no system Is going to be. most units there is more ranch sign ups that LO tags available. Most of it is acre driven meaning more land more opportunity for tags. You can slice pie a hundred different way and it’s still the same amount. Used to be base properties got the lion share of tags but now SCR get the most. Now base property are mad, SCR happier everyone in the middle not happy. So how do you tweak it that it works better.
Click to expand...

Eliminate SCR, no one should be receiving authorizations with 2/5/20 acres. How many land splits has a well known Western NM outfitter and others done gaming the system? Yes, the point system has helped mitigate some of this.

Don’t know the “right” acerage, but have a minimum acreage to qualify.

Strictly enforce the 2 year average, there are larger RO properties converting minimal authorizations.

Address smaller properties on a case by case basis to determine “meaningful benefit”. A volunteer committee of LO’s, hunters and NMDGF could help budget/time constraints.

There is no easy answer, and not everyone will be happy, but the system is broke IMO.

There is a lot of room for improvement, the supporters could drive me around all day pointing out properties that are providing “meaningful benefit”, but we could spend the next day with me pointing out properties that offer absolutely nothing. IMO, it has become nothing more than a subsidy/welfare to some.
 
priley said:
There are many places where there's only one water source per 1200 acres for livestock and yes wells go down, water lines bust, float in the tank fails and drains the storage.
When this happens you get off your ass and start hauling water or moving cattle.

More water sources would be ideal but here in NM you don't always have more options.
Click to expand...
They won’t be raising cattle for long with one water source….a rancher that has to haul water all week is going to eventually drill a well or two…..benefit to all wildlife and his cattle.

I talked to a good friend today about putting in a new well and a few downstream water lines on his ranch. He will need the well drilled, the solar system set up because the well is miles from any electric, ditches trenched, new tire tanks with float boxes set up.

Very expensive water project. Again in the end the cattle and wildlife will benefit from it. The average elk hunter doesn’t spend much more than $4-5 dollars for a habitant stamp.

The NMG&F are doing an excellent job in New Mexico managing the wildlife! That is why so many hunters each year try for a draw tag here or are more than willing to buy a LO tag to get to hunt the great NM elk.
 
More cool fresh NM water for cattle and wildlife. Finished water project last year. Had to doze a road to get the water drilling rig in, that added to the cost but if you’re going to have cattle you’re going to have to have the water. Open to all licensed elk hunters this year.
FFED5381-D5B6-4705-A32F-D0FD8C8662D0.jpeg
 
nice improvements but if it wasn't for the cattle little to NONE of them would have happened. you can try to twist the narrative to make it about the wildlife but we all know that it's about the cattle. EPLUS was originally to compensate the ranchers for losses caused by wildlife. now it's done nothing but create a business by making money from the wildlife. the system needs to be re-focused. the forest service and gm&f need to step up and make those improvements for the wildlife.
 
NM high country said:
They won’t be raising cattle for long with one water source….a rancher that has to haul water all week is going to eventually drill a well or two…..benefit to all wildlife and his cattle.

I talked to a good friend today about putting in a new well and a few downstream water lines on his ranch. He will need the well drilled, the solar system set up because the well is miles from any electric, ditches trenched, new tire tanks with float boxes set up.

Very expensive water project. Again in the end the cattle and wildlife will benefit from it. The average elk hunter doesn’t spend much more than $4-5 dollars for a habitant stamp.

The NMG&F are doing an excellent job in New Mexico managing the wildlife! That is why so many hunters each year try for a draw tag here or are more than willing to buy a LO tag to get to hunt the great NM elk.
Click to expand...
This is a good discussion.

Do wildlife/hunters benefit from the above water project? Absolutely, but you cant lose track of that is a cost of business in his chosen profession. Every business has operating expenses, and many people directly/indirectly benefit, that doesn't mean they are all compensated for that benefit.

If a LO runs a new water system for the sole purpose of wildlife, thats a whole other conversation.

I would be for another stamp that is sold for the sole purpose of adressing water.

I run quite a few cameras, and the whole water deal is blown out of proportion IMO in a lot of units and years. ( no, I’m not saying water isn't important.)
 
It’s easy to say 5/10/20 acres shouldn’t qualify but when you have 15 acres of irrigated bottom land the elk hammers it in the spring. Hunters don’t see it cuz they aren’t around all year. When you have 30-50 head of elk on a pasture for a month it’s providing an big benefit to elk or they wouldn’t be there.

What if your 5 acres is the only water for miles and the elk hit it daily

There is no good or easy fix.
 
Muleman said:
It’s easy to say 5/10/20 acres shouldn’t qualify but when you have 15 acres of irrigated bottom land the elk hammers it in the spring. Hunters don’t see it cuz they aren’t around all year. When you have 30-50 head of elk on a pasture for a month it’s providing an big benefit to elk or they wouldn’t be there.

What if your 5 acres is the only water for miles and the elk hit it daily

There is no good or easy fix.
Click to expand...
build a taller fence. price of doing business. my uncle had the same problem. the gm&f supplied him with the materials, get er done.
 
Last edited:
Muleman said:
It’s easy to say 5/10/20 acres shouldn’t qualify but when you have 15 acres of irrigated bottom land the elk hammers it in the spring. Hunters don’t see it cuz they aren’t around all year. When you have 30-50 head of elk on a pasture for a month it’s providing an big benefit to elk or they wouldn’t be there.

What if your 5 acres is the only water for miles and the elk hit it daily

There is no good or easy fix.
Click to expand...

If you winter a bunch of yearlings on said 15 acres, and I don’t want them destroying my wife’s landscape, it’s my responsibility to fence out your yearlings. I understand elk aren’t livestock, but the argument has always seemed a bit hypocritical to me.

Like mentioned, NMDGF will provide the material for free to fence it if it’s that big of a financial hit. One thing I’ve learned over the years is, the elk conversation with many LO’s is very different in private vs the public messege.

Again, I think the water is overstated in many instances.


We can agree there is not an easy fix that will please everyone.
 
Ropinfool said:
nice improvements but if it wasn't for the cattle little to NONE of them would have happened. you can try to twist the narrative to make it about the wildlife but we all know that it's about the cattle. EPLUS was originally to compensate the ranchers for losses caused by wildlife. now it's done nothing but create a business by making money from the wildlife.
Click to expand...
☝🏽 💯!
Here’s a crazy thought…… what did ranchers do for 100’s of years before the program even existed?
Possible they used the money from the ranching business to support their ranch?
Ouch…. Imagine using money from your business to support your business…..

I’m as guilty as the next guy in using these Eplus properties in certain areas. I’m not a fan of the system never have been but on some ranches they’re very beneficial. When I see a tag for sale for 15-30k online and the registered parcel is a 2-4 acre lot with not even a dirt tank on it is when it’s clear there is something wrong the system.
My family and I have had our place for 3 generations so I do know what it takes to keep things a float. Just over the last 5 years the elk have really moved in but for a hundred years we’ve been feeding and watering all the other wildlife with no sort of supplemental income . It’s part of the deal!
This program has come a long way from compensation for damages to ranchers.

Are there good e-plus ranches that offer their fair share of acres and animals? Absolutely

Are there a ton of properties that should have never even been considered? Absolutely
I’ve said it before … it’s an age old argument here…. Some will love it and others won’t…
 
priley said:
Seems to me that owning land with elk habitat comes with an inherent risk of elk damaging fences or crops. Kind of like owning and operating a vehicle and you get a rock chip in the windshield.
Click to expand...
It isnt just about damage. Again, like my examples show. A lot of people buy land just to improve habitat and hunt!

It's fun, land is a good investment long term, you have additional elk hunting options outside the draw, you do good for elk and other elk hunters.

We are starting to see more and more of this as ranching is becoming harder to be profitable with...ranches are getting bought buy hunters.
 
NM high country said:
They won’t be raising cattle for long with one water source….a rancher that has to haul water all week is going to eventually drill a well or two…..benefit to all wildlife and his cattle.

I talked to a good friend today about putting in a new well and a few downstream water lines on his ranch. He will need the well drilled, the solar system set up because the well is miles from any electric, ditches trenched, new tire tanks with float boxes set up.

Very expensive water project. Again in the end the cattle and wildlife will benefit from it. The average elk hunter doesn’t spend much more than $4-5 dollars for a habitant stamp.

The NMG&F are doing an excellent job in New Mexico managing the wildlife! That is why so many hunters each year try for a draw tag here or are more than willing to buy a LO tag to get to hunt the great NM elk.
Click to expand...
You don't just drill a water well and problem solved. There isn't always water in the hole much less good water.

Does the NMG&F even have a full commission ? They have been a joke the last several years ever since our good governor took charge.
 
priley said:
You don't just drill a water well and problem solved. There isn't always water in the hole much less good water.

Does the NMG&F even have a full commission ? They have been a joke the last several years ever since our good governor took charge.
Click to expand...
Do you understand how EPLUS works for that process?

In the primary zone, if you drilled a dry well...you don't get credit for that well. You have to turn in paperwork showing the project, results, etc.

Unless you lied about it and faked the results and signed your name to it. Most people aren't doing that as it would be fraud, and would get them kicked out of the program if caught...not worth faking, lying, etc.

I am sure some do but most don't
 
BUGLEnmIN said:
☝🏽 💯!
Here’s a crazy thought…… what did ranchers do for 100’s of years before the program even existed?
Possible they used the money from the ranching business to support their ranch?
Ouch…. Imagine using money from your business to support your business…..

I’m as guilty as the next guy in using these Eplus properties in certain areas. I’m not a fan of the system never have been but on some ranches they’re very beneficial. When I see a tag for sale for 15-30k online and the registered parcel is a 2-4 acre lot with not even a dirt tank on it is when it’s clear there is something wrong the system.
My family and I have had our place for 3 generations so I do know what it takes to keep things a float. Just over the last 5 years the elk have really moved in but for a hundred years we’ve been feeding and watering all the other wildlife with no sort of supplemental income . It’s part of the deal!
This program has come a long way from compensation for damages to ranchers.

Are there good e-plus ranches that offer their fair share of acres and animals? Absolutely

Are there a ton of properties that should have never even been considered? Absolutely
I’ve said it before … it’s an age old argument here…. Some will love it and others won’t…
Click to expand...
that's basically my point. there are solutions to all of these problems that don't involve crying to the gm&f for tags. the problem is that this EPLUS program just created a new group of entitled people. we all know that ranching is a tough business. but when people get used to a handout it becomes expected, deserved, etc. i grew up in a ranching family so i know the challenges. EPLUS started out with good intentions but grew into a welfare program, plain and simple.
 
Ropinfool said:
that's basically my point. there are solutions to all of these problems that don't involve crying to the gm&f for tags. the problem is that this EPLUS program just created a new group of entitled people. we all know that ranching is a tough business. but when people get used to a handout it becomes expected, deserved, etc. i grew up in a ranching family so i know the challenges. EPLUS started out with good intentions but grew into a welfare program, plain and simple.
Click to expand...
Agreed… and it’s a sad day when hunters are buying up cattle operations.
 
Bulldawg10 said:
It isnt just about damage. Again, like my examples show. A lot of people buy land ust to improve habitat and hunt!

It's fun, land is a good investment long term, you have additional elk hunting options outside the draw, you do good for elk and other elk hunters.

We are starting to see more and more of this as ranching is becoming harder to be profitable with...ranches are getting bought buy hun
Click to expand...

This is a perfect example of my biggest problem with SCR and E-Plus.

People buy 5/10/20 acre “ranches” that they can some how get water to, or sneak through the cracks like many, and receive authorizations because they’ve found in the long run, they are money ahead and have more opportunity.

As tags get harder to draw in the West, and people have more disposable income, it will become even more of a problem.

The bigger properties being bought/leased as/for hunting, the average NM hunter will never set foot on.

Are you a NM resident?
 
SLM said:
This is a perfect example of my biggest problem with SCR and E-Plus.

People buy 5/10/20 acre “ranches” that they can some how get water to, or sneak through the cracks like many, and receive authorizations because they’ve found in the long run, they are money ahead and have more opportunity.

As tags get harder to draw in the West, and people have more disposable income, it will become even more of a problem.

The bigger properties being bought/leased as/for hunting, the average NM hunter will never set foot on.

Are you a NM resident?
Click to expand...
People make choices in life. Someone saves money and buys land and tries to encourage wildlife and now thats a bad thing.

There are less and less opportunities in the west to hunt. Every state. Its nobodies fault. Quit looking for a boogeyman or someone to hate and be jealous of. Less opportunity and more people want to hunt. You make adjustments. You choose how much money you make and how much you are willing to spend on hunting.
Am I happy it is becoming a activity that is expensive and hard to get into? No of course not. But, I certainly dont hate those that make it a priortity to get tags and land to hunt. I am one of those. I have never owned a new car in my life. I saved and scrimped all my life. I make sure I have a full hunting schedule every year. My family comes first, but, after that I am going hunting. I buy tags, I buy land, I apply in lots of states. Thats because it is important to me. It is more important to me than most hunters.
Quit trying to find someone to blame and look at what you are personally doing so that you can go hunting every year.
 
Last edited:
NMPaul said:
People make choices in life. Someone saves money and buys land and tries to encourage wildlife and now thats a bad thing.

There are less and less opportunities in the west to hunt. Every state. Its nobodies fault. Quit looking for a boogeyman or someone to hate and be jealous of. Less opportunity and more people want to hunt. You make adjustments. You choose how much money you make and how much you are willing to spend on hunting.
Am I happy it is becoming a activity that is expensive and hard to get into? No of course not. But, I certainly dont hate those that make it a priortity to get tags and land to hunt. I am one of those. I have never owned a new car in my life. I saved and scrimped all my life. I work harder than anyone I know even though I dont have to. I make sure I have a full hunting schedule every year. My family comes first, but, after that I am going hunting. I buy tags, I buy land, I apply in lots of states. Thats because it is important to me. It is more important to me than most hunters.
Quit trying to find someone to blame and look at what you are personally doing so that you can go hunting every year.
Click to expand...

You are way off base if you think I’m jealous or hate anyone. Pretty bold statements when you have no idea of my wealth or what I do or don’t own. Believe it or not, you’re not the Lone Ranger on hard work to get where you are.

Your reading comprehension is lacking if you read any hate towards anyone, in any of my posts.

I don’t give a rats ass what you think of me or my opinion of certain aspects of E-Plus. I have been more than cordial on all of my responses, but if you want take it to the weeds, bring it!

Again, where in the hell did you get I’m jealous, angry and looking for a boogeyman?
 
SLM said:
You are way off base if you think I’m jealous or hate anyone. Pretty bold statements when you have no idea of my wealth or what I do or don’t own. Believe it or not, you’re not the Lone Ranger on hard work to get where you are.

Your reading comprehension is lacking if you read any hate towards anyone, in any of my posts.

I don’t give a rats ass what you think of me or my opinion of certain aspects of E-Plus. I have been more than cordial on all of my responses, but if you want take it to the weeds, bring it!

Again, where in the hell did you get I’m jealous, angry and looking for a boogeyman?
Click to expand...
What else is it? Someone buys land and tries to make it more appealing for wildlife and thats a bad thing?
What difference if that person is a NM resident?
You are the one getting personal. Give solutions instead of attacking a system that is at least making habitat a priority.

So if you find fault with the current system, what is your solution to make wildlife a priority with landowners that only see wildlife as a detriment to their stock operations? They exist in a big way.

I copied your post just because it had all the elements that I disagree with. Wasn't meant as a personal attack on you. I can understand how you may have thought that, but, I will let you know it was not directed at you.
The comments I made were directed to the general attitude out there that if you are not drawing tags it has to be someones fault. The animosity has to be directed at a group or a policy.
 
SLM said:
This is a perfect example of my biggest problem with SCR and E-Plus.

People buy 5/10/20 acre “ranches” that they can some how get water to, or sneak through the cracks like many, and receive authorizations because they’ve found in the long run, they are money ahead and have more opportunity.

As tags get harder to draw in the West, and people have more disposable income, it will become even more of a problem.

The bigger properties being bought/leased as/for hunting, the average NM hunter will never set foot on.

Are you a NM resident?
Click to expand...

It is near impossible to get a 5 / 10/ 20 acre place to be accepted now by the EPLUS staff now. I know there are a bunch in there already, I specifically mean, as of how it is scorecarded today. If you disgree...try to find 5 acres right now that will qualify for sale, you won't. Try and find 20, 30, 40 acres...probably still won't find one EPLUS will accept

They weeded out over 700 ranches a few years ago, most of which were very small places. I have tried to buy a small property like that and can't ever get anything they will accept.

You better be looking at a good bit larger places if you want to make sure you can get a new SCR in today, as they are pretty tough on scoring them now. In the primary zone anyways, and if you do get in without water, you are very very likely to score on the mimimum side. Minimum scoring properties will either rarely draw a tag in some units, or most commonly draw a cow.

Your last paragraph is exactly why I think they should make unitwide the preference or score them higher...almost give them a bonus point for being unit wide. It would open up more land to everyone to hunt and put more tags on the market.
 
NMPaul said:
People make choices in life. Someone saves money and buys land and tries to encourage wildlife and now thats a bad thing.

There are less and less opportunities in the west to hunt. Every state. Its nobodies fault. Quit looking for a boogeyman or someone to hate and be jealous of. Less opportunity and more people want to hunt. You make adjustments. You choose how much money you make and how much you are willing to spend on hunting.
Am I happy it is becoming a activity that is expensive and hard to get into? No of course not. But, I certainly dont hate those that make it a priortity to get tags and land to hunt. I am one of those. I have never owned a new car in my life. I saved and scrimped all my life. I work harder than anyone I know even though I dont have to. I make sure I have a full hunting schedule every year. My family comes first, but, after that I am going hunting. I buy tags, I buy land, I apply in lots of states. Thats because it is important to me. It is more important to me than most hunters.
Quit trying to find someone to blame and look at what you are personally doing so that you can go hunting every year.
Click to expand...
Yep! I see it as having two additonal ways to hunt. If I don't draw, I can buy a tag...awesome, plan B

If I can buy some land and develop it...and get a tag as a land owner, even better...plan C

Always give me more options, don't tell me I can only hunt elk one way...and it be uncontrollable by me (the draw). A huge part is uncontrollable in the draw, so having plan B and C is a good thing. At least you have options, and can make personal decisions that allow or eliminate your ability to hunt every single year.
 
NMPaul said:
What else is it? Someone buys land and tries to make it more appealing for wildlife and thats a bad thing?
What difference if that person is a NM resident?
You are the one getting personal. Give solutions instead of attacking a system that is at least making habitat a priority.

So if you find fault with the current system, what is your solution to make wildlife a priority with landowners that only see wildlife as a detriment to their stock operations? They exist in a big way.

I copied your post just because it had all the elements that I disagree with. Wasn't meant as a personal attack on you. I can understand how you may have thought that, but, I will let you know it was not directed at you.
The comments I made were directed to the general attitude out there that if you are not drawing tags it has to be someones fault. The animosity has to be directed at a group or a policy.
Click to expand...

Quote me where I said anything about improvements benefitting wildlife are bad thing. It’s not there. If you read my posts, you’ll see I look at cattle operation improvements differently than improvements strictly with wildlife in mind.

I could care less if he’s a resident or NR. The question was strictly because his experience with smaller properties does not line up with a lot of what I see. My guess is, he comes from an area that pay to play is the norm. Before you jump to conclusions again, that’s not saying it’s a bad thing, we all have different experiences.

Again, quote me where I got personal.

I know quite a few ranchers, and I don’t buy into the detriment argument. No doubt wildlife can and do cause issues, but when just about every property/ranch listing starts out with wildlife, they are not a net negative. How many ranch listing have you read anything like “ the deep well pasture has a large prairie dog colony and is overgrown with broom weed”? Some of the leases being paid are double or more what the cattle operation brings in. Outfitters get in bidding wars and cut each others throats over UW authorizations from many of these small SCR properties in many areas.

I’ve stated before, I’d like to see SCR eliminated and a minimum acerage set. What should that be? 400, 640? I have no problem with any RO authorization. SCR and unit wide IMO has grown into something it never should have.

I have zero misconceptions that E-Plus is the root of decreasing draw odds across the board.

If E-Plus as is, is such a great model for elk and elk habitat, why has no other state adopted it?
 
There are pleeennnnttyy of SCR's under 400 acres that are great elk hunting ground. 160 acres I could see happening one day as a starting point, but even that would eliminate a ton of great hunting spots for elk.

Two years ago, I hunted a sweet Gila NF unitwide spot with a pond that was only about 20 acres....that pond was bringing elk in big time.

Last year I killed a bull on like 200 acres in EPLUS.

Happy they exist for me (and everyone else) to hunt.
 
Last edited:
SLM said:
Quote me where I said anything about improvements benefitting wildlife are bad thing. It’s not there. If you read my posts, you’ll see I look at cattle operation improvements differently than improvements strictly with wildlife in mind.

I could care less if he’s a resident or NR. The question was strictly because his experience with smaller properties does not line up with a lot of what I see. My guess is, he comes from an area that pay to play is the norm. Before you jump to conclusions again, that’s not saying it’s a bad thing, we all have different experiences.

Again, quote me where I got personal.

I know quite a few ranchers, and I don’t buy into the detriment argument. No doubt wildlife can and do cause issues, but when just about every property/ranch listing starts out with wildlife, they are not a net negative. How many ranch listing have you read anything like “ the deep well pasture has a large prairie dog colony and is overgrown with broom weed”? Some of the leases being paid are double or more what the cattle operation brings in. Outfitters get in bidding wars and cut each others throats over UW authorizations from many of these small SCR properties in many areas.

I’ve stated before, I’d like to see SCR eliminated and a minimum acerage set. What should that be? 400, 640? I have no problem with any RO authorization. SCR and unit wide IMO has grown into something it never should have.

I have zero misconceptions that E-Plus is the root of decreasing draw odds across the board.

If E-Plus as is, is such a great model for elk and elk habitat, why has no other state adopted it?
Click to expand...
I will say again that the intention was not to make it about you. You are right, you did not say it was a bad thing. It was a post previous to yours I think Genos about buying cattle operations. Most guys that are buying property for investment, hunting also will lease the cattle operation with higher than average restriction on grazing.

I do think asking him if he was a NR was getting personal. Maybe taking out of context, but, I kinda could see where that could go. I certainly understand how non western states are primarily pay to play.

I absolutely disagree with the fact that many ranchers are absolutely anti wildlife competing with their stock. I personally know a bunch of them. The line is hazy but, it is more split by ranchers leasing public land and those that own deeded and can get a benefit from tags. This is an absolute fact. Attend a cattleman's association meeting and bring up elk. Again not saying all, but, for sure a very significant percentage. I know them personally and argue regularly,

I hunted 175 acres during ML and Rifle. There were elk on it the 5 nights I hunted it. Every single time we went.
There are a half dozen examples I can think of where SCR gives you access to some great public land that would otherwise be impossible or very hard to get to,

This has all been said before. If you apply in other states, you will know that every single state is completely different. CO has a very similar program where landowner gets unit wide tags that they can sell, difference is they cannot be brokered. I know for a fact of a 160 acre parcel that gets 3 unit wide mule deer tags every year. I know because I have bought at least one the last 3 years.

Hey, I wish we could turn back the clock, but, like I originally said. There are way less opportunities and way more people wanting to hunt regardless of what mainstream narrative has been the last 5 years. We all have seen it.
The pattern will not reverse. It will get worse and worse every year. Complain, adjust or bow out. I dont like the 3 options. Just stating the facts. I for one will adjust until I cant hike the hills anymore.
 
NMPaul said:
People make choices in life. Someone saves money and buys land and tries to encourage wildlife and now thats a bad thing.

There are less and less opportunities in the west to hunt. Every state. Its nobodies fault. Quit looking for a boogeyman or someone to hate and be jealous of. Less opportunity and more people want to hunt. You make adjustments. You choose how much money you make and how much you are willing to spend on hunting.
Am I happy it is becoming a activity that is expensive and hard to get into? No of course not. But, I certainly dont hate those that make it a priortity to get tags and land to hunt. I am one of those. I have never owned a new car in my life. I saved and scrimped all my life. I work harder than anyone I know even though I dont have to. I make sure I have a full hunting schedule every year. My family comes first, but, after that I am going hunting. I buy tags, I buy land, I apply in lots of states. Thats because it is important to me. It is more important to me than most hunters.
Quit trying to find someone to blame and look at what you are personally doing so that you can go hunting every year.
Click to expand...
AMEN Paul! Everyone wants "fair" if its "fair" for them and their interests or rhetoric. I too am doing everything in my power to have hunting opportunities for me and my family. I always find it fascinating how we as hunters are so narrow minded and go through life with the blinders on. Instead of looking at the bigger picture, we focus on our own agendas. #1 thing effecting wildlife across the west is habitat loss. In a state that is 1/3 privately owned, landowners are critical for habitat. Imagine a landscape covered in subdivisions and what that might look like for your children and their children. Cohesion between landowners and hunters is what we need, not the division and squabbling.
 
I think there are facts that most people should be able to agree on no matter what side of the fence your on or lean to:

-EPLUS program is not suppose to be depredation program to compensate landowners for Elk damage, it's designed to incentivize landowners to have good elk habitat.

- EPLUS program does benefit Elk. There are lots of private landowners that have prime elk habitat, even small acre properties that have awesome food, water. It's to the benefit of all hunters and elk to protect these habitats and if EPLUS incentivizes the landowner to protect, that's great.

-There are properties that are getting tags that probably shouldn't. Elk habitat is either not that great or landowner isn't really doing anything to help Elk habitat, they just happen to be in the PMZ and are benefiting financially from EPLUS.

What % of EPLUS lands are in those 2 categories, I have no idea and I don't think nobody else does. People usually comment on their own experience or motivation to make their point and use a broad brush.

Now my opinion:

States wildlife including Elk belong to the citizens of the state via the public trust doctrine. Having ~30% of elk tags going to EPLUS seems excessive to me, especially when comparing to other states. Just because maybe 30% of the elk habitat is on private land that doesn't mean they should get 30% of the tags. That almost treats those Elk as the landowners animals which they aren't, they still belong to the people of the state. Now that doesn't mean landowners should not get tags, that's just ridiculous. Like I said, they play a meaningful and vital role to Elk and are out there everyday dealing with the land, providing water to cattle and wildlife. They are way more important than me, the city boy that loves to hunt public land but really contributes nothing other than my license money and my voice. Also, just because other states do it one way doesn't mean we have to do the same. We are our own state with different circumstances and history and we have a great Elk herd. I think EPLUS is a decent program but needs some tweaking. Giving the public hunter more opportunity should occur. Whether that be shifting some tags back to the public draw, making Ranch only properties accept a small % of public hunters on their ranch to participate, adjusting the land scoring system or any other method that can be thought of to give the public more tags while still having a system that incentivizes landowners to want quality elk habitat on their property should be the goal.

Like Paul has said many times, there are way more dangerous forces at work that threaten hunters and ranchers way of life than EPLUS, so fighting over it among ourselves is detrimental.
 
NMPaul said:
I will say again that the intention was not to make it about you. You are right, you did not say it was a bad thing. It was a post previous to yours I think Genos about buying cattle operations. Most guys that are buying property for investment, hunting also will lease the cattle operation with higher than average restriction on grazing.

I do think asking him if he was a NR was getting personal. Maybe taking out of context, but, I kinda could see where that could go. I certainly understand how non western states are primarily pay to play.

I absolutely disagree with the fact that many ranchers are absolutely anti wildlife competing with their stock. I personally know a bunch of them. The line is hazy but, it is more split by ranchers leasing public land and those that own deeded and can get a benefit from tags. This is an absolute fact. Attend a cattleman's association meeting and bring up elk. Again not saying all, but, for sure a very significant percentage. I know them personally and argue regularly,

I hunted 175 acres during ML and Rifle. There were elk on it the 5 nights I hunted it. Every single time we went.
There are a half dozen examples I can think of where SCR gives you access to some great public land that would otherwise be impossible or very hard to get to,

This has all been said before. If you apply in other states, you will know that every single state is completely different. CO has a very similar program where landowner gets unit wide tags that they can sell, difference is they cannot be brokered. I know for a fact of a 160 acre parcel that gets 3 unit wide mule deer tags every year. I know because I have bought at least one the last 3 years.

Hey, I wish we could turn back the clock, but, like I originally said. There are way less opportunities and way more people wanting to hunt regardless of what mainstream narrative has been the last 5 years. We all have seen it.
The pattern will not reverse. It will get worse and worse every year. Complain, adjust or bow out. I dont like the 3 options. Just stating the facts. I for one will adjust until I cant hike the hills anymore.
Click to expand...

We can definitely agree that the smaller places that mostly utilize public land grazing and strictly deeded operations are a different conversation. This separation is a lot of my issue with SCR.

As mentioned above, I’ve always thought if LO’s, hunters and the outfitting industry could ever unite, it would be an unstoppable alliance, but as proven here, hunters cant even unite themselves.

When it comes to E-Plus, everyone has an agenda and can/does spin it to the narrative that fits them and their benefit best. I don’t see how anyone can look at it through on honest lens and say it doesn’t do some good things, but has become in part, something it never should have.

In the end, there will never be agreement on what is right, so we will all fight in different directions for what we see as right.
 
"-EPLUS program is not suppose to be depredation program to compensate landowners for Elk damage, it's designed to incentivize landowners to have good elk habitat."

this is wrong, EPLUS was created to:"The EPLUS program was created to help compensate landowners for the stresses and damage that elk can inflict on infrastructure and native feeds."

or in other words to compensate landowners for the damaged caused by wildlife.
5yr makes some good points but i think the system needs a little more than tweaking. Like i said, it needs a re-focus. and to throw in one more thing, the Jennings law needs to be repealed!
 
Last edited:
It came to mind after I posted. The CO deer landowner tag that is unit wide does NOT allow the public to hunt that land.
NM does allow the public to hunt the private land that are issued UW tags.
I know NV also has landowner incentive tags that are unit wide. I am not familiar with the details of those besides they are expensive as hell in the good units.

Sad fact is that money talks. If there wasn't a value to wildlife it would be in a sorry state. Fortunately hunters provide the majority of the funds to states. Unfortunately, they can never unite. we share the most of the same priorities as ranchers, landowners but, it seems we complain more about them, than government overreach, anti hunters, the uninformed public that would end hunting when and if they can.
 
Ropinfool said:
"-EPLUS program is not suppose to be depredation program to compensate landowners for Elk damage, it's designed to incentivize landowners to have good elk habitat."

this is wrong, EPLUS was created to:"The EPLUS program was created to help compensate landowners for the stresses and damage that elk can inflict on infrastructure and native feeds."
Click to expand...
Where did you get that quote? This is from G&F Website:

The EPLUS program was created in recognition of the important benefits that private lands make to the elk populations and hunting opportunities in New Mexico. The program gives hunters and landowners a way to work together to effectively manage and hunt elk on private lands.
 
Bulldawg10 said:
It is near impossible to get a 5 / 10/ 20 acre place to be accepted now by the EPLUS staff now. I know there are a bunch in there already, I specifically mean, as of how it is scorecarded today. If you disgree...try to find 5 acres right now that will qualify for sale, you won't. Try and find 20, 30, 40 acres...probably still won't find one EPLUS will accept

They weeded out over 700 ranches a few years ago, most of which were very small places. I have tried to buy a small property like that and can't ever get anything they will accept.

You better be looking at a good bit larger places if you want to make sure you can get a new SCR in today, as they are pretty tough on scoring them now. In the primary zone anyways, and if you do get in without water, you are very very likely to score on the mimimum side. Minimum scoring properties will either rarely draw a tag in some units, or most commonly draw a cow.

Your last paragraph is exactly why I think they should make unitwide the preference or score them higher...almost give them a bonus point for being unit wide. It would open up more land to everyone to hunt and put more tags on the market.
Click to expand...
Guaranteed there is property under 10 acres qualifying. Remember the list that gets posted on line are just those that received tags that year, it’s not all that qualified.

I agree little SCR are an issue but like a stated before some can provide benefits if they are irrigated bottom lands or only water for miles and want to be in E+.

Be interesting to see if this commission tackles the issue or takes a dive.

E+ was derived to be a landowner incentive not a compensation for damage tool. Problem is for a lot of years it was run like a damage compensation tool and still is to some extent.
 
Muleman said:
Guaranteed there is property under 10 acres qualifying. Remember the list that gets posted on line are just those that received tags that year, it’s not all that qualified.

I agree little SCR are an issue but like a stated before some can provide benefits if they are irrigated bottom lands or only water for miles and want to be in E+.

Be interesting to see if this commission tackles the issue or takes a dive.

E+ was derived to be a landowner incentive not a compensation for damage tool. Problem is for a lot of years it was run like a damage compensation tool and still is to some extent.
Click to expand...
I never said there were not very small SCRs...I said there are a bunch, and a bunch got weeded out.

And I said, you will be hard pressed to get a small SCR like that into the program as it sits today.
 
hunt1 said:
Propoganda post…👎
Click to expand...
Here is some more propaganda for you.

This is a dirt tank that EPLUS only gave the property a score of 1 of 3 on water, it does hold water for multiple seasons but not year round.

One picture shows it when full after a really good monsoon year. The other is showing now that is maintained by a well that has drinkers over flowing into it. If it wasn't for those water improvements added by an elk hunting property owner that untilized EPLUS to its full potential, this pond would be bone dry like every over dirt tank up and down this drainage today. Instead, now it remains a solid water hole even when it has little to no rain for much of the year.

The property water score should increase now that it has year round water and the public could hunt this spot in a really good unit.

20240330_112314.jpg


Screenshot_20240503_160549_Photos.jpg
 
If you love to hunt elk I don’t see how anyone could argue against the program. I really think it comes down to jealousy. Like I’ve said before I have been applying for elk in AZ (no eplus, point system) every year for 19 years and never have drawn a tag. In NM I’ve been lucky quite a few times in the draw and bought a landowner tag when I didn’t draw. NM….best in the West !! Y’all can sit home and argue about it forever I’ve got my down payment in and I’ll be going elk hunting.
SLM said:
Public land that you can hunt any species. Have only seen it dry up once in 3 years for a couple weeks.


View attachment 144871
Click to expand...
If you can draw a tag. If you didn’t draw buy a LO tag that you are so against. 😂
 
NM high country said:
If you love to hunt elk I don’t see how anyone could argue against the program. I really think it comes down to jealousy. Like I’ve said before I have been applying for elk in AZ (no eplus, point system) every year for 19 years and never have drawn a tag. In NM I’ve been lucky quite a few times in the draw and bought a landowner tag when I didn’t draw. NM….best in the West !! Y’all can sit home and argue about it forever I’ve got my down payment in and I’ll be going elk hunting.

If you can draw a tag. If you didn’t draw buy a LO tag that you are so against. 😂
Click to expand...

It’s funny how so many of you go to jealousy if someone is against parts of E-Plus, I have not seen anyone call for an elimination of E-Plus. (Maybe I missed it?)

Lots of assumptions made, I have bought authorizations. Depending on a few other things in the works, I might buy one this year as well. Doesn’t change the fact I think it needs a major overhaul.
 
SLM said:
It’s funny how so many of you go to jealousy if someone is against parts of E-Plus, I have not seen anyone call for an elimination of E-Plus. (Maybe I missed it?)

Lots of assumptions made, I have bought authorizations. Depending on a few other things in the works, I might buy one this year as well. Doesn’t change the fact I think it needs a major overhaul.
Click to expand...
I’m buying 1 and still don’t care for the program 🤣🤣🤣🤣
 
Last edited:
NMPaul said:
I will say again that the intention was not to make it about you. You are right, you did not say it was a bad thing. It was a post previous to yours I think Genos about buying cattle operations. Most guys that are buying property for investment, hunting also will lease the cattle operation with higher than average restriction on grazing.

I do think asking him if he was a NR was getting personal. Maybe taking out of context, but, I kinda could see where that could go. I certainly understand how non western states are primarily pay to play.

I absolutely disagree with the fact that many ranchers are absolutely anti wildlife competing with their stock. I personally know a bunch of them. The line is hazy but, it is more split by ranchers leasing public land and those that own deeded and can get a benefit from tags. This is an absolute fact. Attend a cattleman's association meeting and bring up elk. Again not saying all, but, for sure a very significant percentage. I know them personally and argue regularly,

I hunted 175 acres during ML and Rifle. There were elk on it the 5 nights I hunted it. Every single time we went.
There are a half dozen examples I can think of where SCR gives you access to some great public land that would otherwise be impossible or very hard to get to,

This has all been said before. If you apply in other states, you will know that every single state is completely different. CO has a very similar program where landowner gets unit wide tags that they can sell, difference is they cannot be brokered. I know for a fact of a 160 acre parcel that gets 3 unit wide mule deer tags every year. I know because I have bought at least one the last 3 years.

Hey, I wish we could turn back the clock, but, like I originally said. There are way less opportunities and way more people wanting to hunt regardless of what mainstream narrative has been the last 5 years. We all have seen it.
The pattern will not reverse. It will get worse and worse every year. Complain, adjust or bow out. I dont like the 3 options. Just stating the facts. I for one will adjust until I cant hike the hills anymore.
Click to expand...
160 acres does not get you three applications in Colorado, you would only get 1 as 160 is the min, the only way you could get three tags would be through the leftover part of the LPP. I am in the program with 1200 acres and get two apps.
 
NMPaul said:
It came to mind after I posted. The CO deer landowner tag that is unit wide does NOT allow the public to hunt that land.
NM does allow the public to hunt the private land that are issued UW tags.
I know NV also has landowner incentive tags that are unit wide. I am not familiar with the details of those besides they are expensive as hell in the good units.

Sad fact is that money talks. If there wasn't a value to wildlife it would be in a sorry state. Fortunately hunters provide the majority of the funds to states. Unfortunately, they can never unite. we share the most of the same priorities as ranchers, landowners but, it seems we complain more about them, than government overreach, anti hunters, the uninformed public that would end hunting when and if they can.
Click to expand...
In Colorado you are required to give access to your property on a unit wide tag
 
brooktrout said:
In Colorado you are required to give access to your property on a unit wide tag
Click to expand...
Not the landowner tags I have been buying. the tag is good unit wide and no public access to property. I have specifically discussed this with the game and fish department when I am validating tags.3 years in a row. And Yes. 3 tags 160 acres. I am not an expert on CO, I just have first hand experience with this property. It is not a premium unit. Not sure if that matters. Be happy to discuss in PMs with you because I would not give specific info regarding unit, property etc, but could in PM.
 
BUGLEnmIN said:
I’m buying 1 and still don’t care for the program 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Click to expand...
I think the program should exist, but, I think the number of tags allotted to the program should decrease. The price landowners can sell tags for now compared to 15 years ago should be taken into consideration. They can still get substantial money with less tags in fact price would probably go up more.
 
NMPaul said:
I think the program should exist, but, I think the number of tags allotted to the program should decrease. The price landowners can sell tags for now compared to 15 years ago should be taken into consideration. They can still get substantial money with less tags in fact price would probably go up more.
Click to expand...
Agreed! I’ve always just felt it can be improved ESPECIALLY by adding a minimum acreage. Always been my biggest gripe especially in my best elk unit!
 
It is my opinion that the state of NM is just loving the tax revenue. Pick one good unit archery only. There are 150 ES tags in the draw. If 90% go to residents and the other 10% to non res. That would bring in about $15k. That $ is allocated for wildlife conservation. 125 go to land owners that sell them for an average of 10k a tag. That is $1,250,000. With a tax rate of 8% the state takes in $100,000. None of which is required to go back to conservation. Our anti gun liberal governor is just padding her pockets. We are one of the poorest states and majority of these tags go to non residents This is reason enough for me to dislike the Eplus. If all tags were Ranch Only it would weed out small acreages as well as promote habitat as the rancher with the best habitat would have the best harvests and could charge more. Get rid of unit wide!
 
MrRogers said:
It is my opinion that the state of NM is just loving the tax revenue. Pick one good unit archery only. There are 150 ES tags in the draw. If 90% go to residents and the other 10% to non res. That would bring in about $15k. That $ is allocated for wildlife conservation. 125 go to land owners that sell them for an average of 10k a tag. That is $1,250,000. With a tax rate of 8% the state takes in $100,000. None of which is required to go back to conservation. Our anti gun liberal governor is just padding her pockets. We are one of the poorest states and majority of these tags go to non residents This is reason enough for me to dislike the Eplus. If all tags were Ranch Only it would weed out small acreages as well as promote habitat as the rancher with the best habitat would have the best harvests and could charge more. Get rid of unit wide!
Click to expand...

The seller has asked for cash with every authorization I have bought. I have always thought it would be interesting to see the total claimed on sales vs the reality.

I agree that RO properties have a lot more at stake when it comes to being “elk friendly” vs a UW property. A UW authorization is worth market value whether elk are ever on the property or not.

I know this will set some into a tail spin, but much of the improvements mentioned and talked about are strictly based on what is needed getting the valuable authorizations, not what is best for elk. Yes, the wildlife benefits, but a UW property has little to gain once the authorization is issued.
 
MrRogers said:
It is my opinion that the state of NM is just loving the tax revenue. Pick one good unit archery only. There are 150 ES tags in the draw. If 90% go to residents and the other 10% to non res. That would bring in about $15k. That $ is allocated for wildlife conservation. 125 go to land owners that sell them for an average of 10k a tag. That is $1,250,000. With a tax rate of 8% the state takes in $100,000. None of which is required to go back to conservation. Our anti gun liberal governor is just padding her pockets. We are one of the poorest states and majority of these tags go to non residents This is reason enough for me to dislike the Eplus. If all tags were Ranch Only it would weed out small acreages as well as promote habitat as the rancher with the best habitat would have the best harvests and could charge more. Get rid of unit wide!
Click to expand...
Your agruement at the bottom is like when in Covid, the small mom and pop stores (SCR ranches) had to close but the big box stores like Walmart (big ranches) were deemed essential and could keep to business as usual.

The little guys are important too (in habitat on SCR ranches), and the revenue is even more important to them to keep the doors open.

You talk about NM being a poor state but want to take a valuable resource from land owners that are probably mostly average folks and primarily NM residents in SCR tags.

And want to only allow the big guys, mutli millionaire land owners, with big ranches to play the game due to the land sizes needed.

This makes the rich, richer and the average joe at a disadvantage even more.

The current system is equitable in that anyone can buy an SCR, develop it and get in the program. It allows everyone an additional way to access elk hunting.

Land owner taxes in NM are extremely low on ag land. The taxes vs maintenance fees of ag land vs a 401k, put your money in land instead....it is a good alternative and you get to elk hunt!
 
Last edited:
Bulldawg10 said:
Your agruement at the bottom is like when in Covid, the small mom and pop stores (SCR ranches) had to close but the big box stores like Walmart (big ranches) were deemed essential and could keep to business as usual.

The little guys are important too (in habitat on SCR ranches), and the revenue is even more important to them to keep the doors open.

You talk about NM being a poor state but want to take a valuable resource from land owners that are probably mostly average folks and primarily NM residents in SCR tags.

And want to only allow the big guys, mutli millionaire land owners, with big ranches to play the game due to the land sizes needed.

This makes the rich, richer and the average joe at a disadvantage even more.

The current system is equitable in that anyone can buy an SCR, develop it and get in the program. It allows everyone an additional way to access elk hunting.

Land owner taxes in NM are extremely low on ag land. The taxes vs maintenance fees of ag land vs a 401k, put your money in land instead....it is a good alternative and you get to elk hunt!
Click to expand...
“The little guys are important too (in habitat on SCR ranches), and the revenue is even more important to them to keep the doors open.”

A large portion of SCR is non producing properties, so, “keeping the doors open”. Is a red herring.

If this conversation was framed in any other subject, many would be arguing against subsidies and welfare.
 
It is pretty simple as described. Follow the money. I’m surprised nobody asked me the unit I shared info on. Didn’t want “a la verga” but the stats are legit even if the math is just mediocre. Many “land owners” don’t live on the property or use their ag exemption. They bought it for the vacation home and selling tags. I’ve looked into doing the same. I chewed my tongue to avoid getting into this garbage.
 
SLM said:
“The little guys are important too (in habitat on SCR ranches), and the revenue is even more important to them to keep the doors open.”

A large portion of SCR is non producing properties, so, “keeping the doors open”. Is a red herring.

If this conversation was framed in any other subject, many would be arguing against subsidies and welfare.
Click to expand...
I’m not for subsidies or welfare so you called it correctly. I have always had to work for what I own.
 
Bulldawg10 said:
Your agruement at the bottom is like when in Covid, the small mom and pop stores (SCR ranches) had to close but the big box stores like Walmart (big ranches) were deemed essential and could keep to business as usual.

The little guys are important too (in habitat on SCR ranches), and the revenue is even more important to them to keep the doors open.

You talk about NM being a poor state but want to take a valuable resource from land owners that are probably mostly average folks and primarily NM residents in SCR tags.

And want to only allow the big guys, mutli millionaire land owners, with big ranches to play the game due to the land sizes needed.

This makes the rich, richer and the average joe at a disadvantage even more.

The current system is equitable in that anyone can buy an SCR, develop it and get in the program. It allows everyone an additional way to access elk hunting.

Land owner taxes in NM are extremely low on ag land. The taxes vs maintenance fees of ag land vs a 401k, put your money in land instead....it is a good alternative and you get to elk hunt!
Click to expand...
You clearly are a non resident.
 
SLM said:
“The little guys are important too (in habitat on SCR ranches), and the revenue is even more important to them to keep the doors open.”

A large portion of SCR is non producing properties, so, “keeping the doors open”. Is a red herring.

If this conversation was framed in any other subject, many would be arguing against subsidies and welfare.
Click to expand...
Spoken like a true modern day liberal! I’ve been in states that can’t hold a candle to NM hunting and the elk management. The elk are flourishing everywhere I go in elk country. This conversation usually comes up every year after the draw when guys don’t get a tag. Better luck next year.
 
DBR said:
Spoken like a true modern day liberal! I’ve been in states that can’t hold a candle to NM hunting and the elk management. The elk are flourishing everywhere I go in elk country. This conversation usually comes up every year after the draw when guys don’t get a tag. Better luck next year.
Click to expand...

How you can get liberal out of my argument is beyond me, but go with it if that’s all you’ve got.

Wouldn’t arguing to keep a government subsidy (in some cases) a liberal ideology?
 
MrRogers said:
It is my opinion that the state of NM is just loving the tax revenue. Pick one good unit archery only. There are 150 ES tags in the draw. If 90% go to residents and the other 10% to non res. That would bring in about $15k. That $ is allocated for wildlife conservation. 125 go to land owners that sell them for an average of 10k a tag. That is $1,250,000. With a tax rate of 8% the state takes in $100,000. None of which is required to go back to conservation. Our anti gun liberal governor is just padding her pockets. We are one of the poorest states and majority of these tags go to non residents This is reason enough for me to dislike the Eplus. If all tags were Ranch Only it would weed out small acreages as well as promote habitat as the rancher with the best habitat would have the best harvests and could charge more. Get rid of unit wide!
Click to expand...
You are part right. From a politician point of view E+ creates money into NM economy, Nm residents, creates an income to be taxed on, and it’s at no cost to the government. It’s a total win for the government and is why I don't think it will ever go away. It’s too much a cash cow now. This system was in place long before this governor unfortunately can’t blame the witch for it.

And the correct split is 84% resident, 10 % guided(mostly non resident), and 6% non resident
 
Muleman said:
You are part right. From a politician point of view E+ creates money into NM economy, Nm residents, creates an income to be taxed on, and it’s at no cost to the government. It’s a total win for the government and is why I don't think it will ever go away. It’s too much a cash cow now. This system was in place long before this governor unfortunately can’t blame the witch for it.

And the correct split is 84% resident, 10 % guided(mostly non resident), and 6% non resident
Click to expand...
Agreed. As mentioned the math I just rounded. Sad that it is not allocated for conservation. The communist governor loves the revenue but hates all of us! Ranch only tags would make some tags reasonable(others super high) and balance the playing field. She is about to raise cost to state parks for day passes. Expensive enough to take your kids to the lake for a day of fishing. California New Mexico here we come.
 
SLM said:
How you can get liberal out of my argument is beyond me, but go with it if that’s all you’ve got.

Wouldn’t arguing to keep a government subsidy (in some cases) a liberal ideology?
Click to expand...
SLM
I sent you a PM
 
NMPaul said:
Not the landowner tags I have been buying. the tag is good unit wide and no public access to property. I have specifically discussed this with the game and fish department when I am validating tags.3 years in a row. And Yes. 3 tags 160 acres. I am not an expert on CO, I just have first hand experience with this property. It is not a premium unit. Not sure if that matters. Be happy to discuss in PMs with you because I would not give specific info regarding unit, property etc, but could in PM.
Click to expand...
not sure where you are getting the no public access? because it is a requirement for participation in the program. The landowner can say that but they can be removed from LPP if this is the case.
Happy to discuss via PM
 
Here is a perfect example of my issue with E-Plus. These are definitely not one offs.

The majority of these properties are owned by people in TX, MT, CO, ND, FL etc. Many bought for the sole purpose of E-Plus. I have personally seen some of these properties, and many do not have any water source that so many want to discuss. What value do these properties have in regards to “meaningful habitat”?

A few are tied to producing properties, but very few.

IMG_6954.jpeg
 
Buy one and see if you get
SLM said:
Here is a perfect example of my issue with E-Plus. These are definitely not one offs.

The majority of these properties are owned by people in TX, MT, CO, ND, FL etc. Many bought for the sole purpose of E-Plus. I have personally seen some of these properties, and many do not have any water source that so many want to discuss. What value do these properties have in regards to “meaningful habitat”?

A few are tied to producing properties, but very few.

View attachment 145310
Click to expand...
Buy one today and see if you get it qualified by EPLUS. I bet you won't get in the program with those now...especially with no water.

Also, the ones I have been on in this same checkboard did have water. Owned by a guy out of Abq

A couple of those in there, also owned by another family out of NM, were eliminated by the program in 2018, when about 700 properties were removed.

They added multiple guzzler systems and just got requalified last year.

So in my experience in this checkerboard, EPLUS did exactly what it wanted to there by getting waters into that area via the scoring system.

I sent multiple listing to them, in this area, as said, "What do you think about this?"

Their response was, "Probably won't qualify without at least a guzzler capable of carrying multipe seasons of water"

Pretty big undertaking to get any supplies into a lot of that area to even build a guzzler. A lot of it is inaccessible to ever drill a water well.

And I am sure...some probably should still removed under current standards for an EPLUS property.

But, I think a few squeaking through as minimally scoring properties is far better than the elk not getting the resources created for them, and you getting access to hunt that land, if you want.
 
Bulldawg10 said:
Buy one and see if you get

Buy one today and see if you get it qualified by EPLUS. I bet you won't get in the program with those now...especially with no water.

Also, the ones I have been on in this same checkboard did have water. Owned by a guy out of Abq

A couple of those in there, also owned by another family out of NM, were eliminated by the program in 2018, when about 700 properties were removed.

They added multiple guzzler systems and just got requalified last year.

So in my experience in this checkerboard, EPLUS did exactly what it wanted to there by getting waters into that area via the scoring system.

I sent multiple listing to them, in this area, as said, "What do you think about this?"

Their response was, "Probably won't qualify without at least a guzzler capable of carrying multipe seasons of water"

Pretty big undertaking to get any supplies into a lot of that area to even build a guzzler. A lot of it is inaccessible to ever drill a water well.

And I am sure...some probably should still removed under current standards for an EPLUS property.

But, I think a few squeaking through as minimally scoring properties is far better than the elk not getting the resources created for them, and you getting access to hunt that land, if you want.
Click to expand...
If they wouldn’t qualify today, they need to be removed.

I know the country well, and there is only a few of the producing properties that have water.

A lot of these properties are perfect examples of why SCR needs eliminated.

How many similar properties have you bought to play the E- Plus game?
 
SLM said:
If they wouldn’t qualify today, they need to be removed.

I know the country well, and there is only a few of the producing properties that have water.

A lot of these properties are perfect examples of why SCR needs eliminated.

How many similar properties have you bought to play the E- Plus game?
Click to expand...
I haven't bought any like this as they told me they were unlikely to get in the program without significant additional development.

If I could afford the development and time to do it, I would though.

So if someone wants to do the work, great! That is how then program should work...and I do agree, some should be removed. But in general, tons of SCRs are great habitat for wildlife.

If someone buys 40 acres in the checkboard and get water into a place with limit water, they should be rewarded.
 
They are still not allowed to deny access across private land even if they are not UW if that is your biggest concern. Elk will travel many miles for vegetation or water if it is a hard year. They will survive without a water source on every corner. As i tried to explain that none of the money the state acquires from these private tags goes back into wildlife conservation. I know there are many drinkers in the desert where I hunt muleys that our tag money provided. All of the critters we all love use them. We New Mexico residents paid for that. The UW tag $ just goes to the wasteful spending of our state. Likely housing and feeding tons of illegal aliens and homeless addicts while ignoring our veterans. They all have a food stamp card and cell phone but no help with addiction or mental health. Our tax money well spent. SRC must go.
 

Similar threads

shedneck
Thank You, Utah.
Replies
8
Views
1k
elkassassin
elkassassin
legacy
Booking Private Land Hunts?
Replies
14
Views
1k
treedagain
treedagain
bstewy
Lucky Utah Once in a Lifetime
Replies
20
Views
2k
PleaseDear
PleaseDear

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

44495D12-270E-49D8-B808-A45D19A703A1.jpeg
And Yet Another Trophy Bull
2848D3CF-53CD-45A3-9441-77EF6FB8BE3E.jpeg
Screenshot_20220826-092740.png
High Country Velvet
723ADB23-CC69-4B94-8098-C04983BC87A8.jpeg
IMG_6245.jpeg
9095A2D3-20A5-4791-BF24-94D61342CB4E.jpeg
IMG_4722.jpeg
20231002_202019.jpg
IMG_6119.jpeg
DSCN1464.JPG

New Mexico Guides & Outfitters

H & A Outfitters

Private and public land hunts since 1992 for elk, mule deer, sheep, pronghorn, black Bear & lion hunts.

505 Outfitters

Public and private land big game hunts. Rifle, muzzleloader and archery hunts available. Free Draw Application Service!

Sierra Blanca Outfitters

Offering a wide array of hunt opportunities and putting clients in prime position to bag a trophy.

Urge 2 Hunt

Hunts in New Mexico on private ranches and remote public land in the top units. Elk vouchers available.

Mangas Outfitters

Landowner tags available! Hunt big bulls and bucks. Any season and multiple hunt units to choose from.

Back
Top Bottom