New Mexico Elk Hunt - Access Issues

[knothead]

New Mexico is a beautiful state but I am so happy I left there and moved back to AZ. Good luck on your hunt and I hope you can navigate through all their red tape and land issues.

[jamaro]

We are working hard on getting the camping on state trust land issue changed, among other issues. There are a few spots in that unit where you can camp on trust land and you can find them on the SLO website. Warning it can be a pain to navigate.

J

[1uofacat]

 

 

 

U should be able to camp on any of the BLM inside that unit.

While true remember that if you choose to camp on State Land you have to have permission from the lands lesee (usually this would be the rancher leasing the land for his cattle).

Am I alone here feeling about how that sounds? That seems so wrong to me... a rancher pays a fee to the state to let his cattle graze on "my grass" so he can sell me his cattle/beef (indirectly), and I have to ask him permission? That's total BS!

 

I'm glad I moved out of NM years ago and back to AZ.

But it's not the public's grass, it is the state's grass. State trust land is not public land.

 

Who owns the grass is not the point. The state is the agency/body that manages the resources be those animals, other recreation opportunities, range grass, what have you. In Arizona since I have a hunting license I have rights to access all Arizona BLM land, by law, as I too "pay a fee" to "use the land who's 'resources' are managed by the State.

 

Why should any hunter have to ask a rancher permission to camp on state land? What if a rancher says no? Ranchers are in it for their own profit. Ranchers don't manage the land, they just use it and often times abuse it. In NM, it costs about $6/mo for a cow/calf pair to graze on state land. If it takes 2 years for a calf to grow to "mature/market" status, for about $200 in grazing costs (2-3/4 years fee) you can have a cow get pregnant, have a calf, let it mature, then sell it after it's 2 years old. Aren't full-grown cattle work $1500 - $2,000? You do the math... of course there's other costs, but bottom line is not about the work or profit to ranchers or the state, but this is about our access/land use rights.

 

How often do we see over-grazed lands in our pursuits in the field? While every rancher is different and some actually do care, my opinion is that most don't care about overgrazing other than how overgrazing affects profits.

 

While I agree to a point that state trust land is not simply "public land", I disagree with you if you are suggesting that a hunting license does not provide additional rights to use for the lawful pursuit/use, or that a rancher has more rights than I do in this case. Besides, where does the agency that manages state land get their $s from? I'm guessing that mostly their $s come from residents and taxes. As a resident of any state we inherently pay taxes. For those of us who who hunt we pay more than those who do not and probably why AZ agreed that having a valid hunting license affords hunting license holders access to AZ BLM land.

 

IMHO, giving ranchers (businessmen) the right to deny a hunter a camping location is wrong, period! Besides, we don't typically want to camp where there's a lot of cattle around, or have them walk by/through our camp crapping all over. I really don't see any point to that law/requirement as it only gives a rancher the right to deny a lawful hunter his rights. I've often moved camp or camped elsewhere because of the cattle in an area. To me, that's a totally BS law that should be removed. Just because that is a law doesn't mean it's a good law either.

 

my 3 cents worth...

[jamaro]

There are a bunch of things to unpack with your reply.

1) Non-hunters can gain access to State Trust Lands by purchasing a permit. - That being said the SLO has two LOE's...

2) The Dept of Game and Fish pays the SLO 2 mill for hunter/angler access.... This was raised from 600,000 recently. This is pocket change as the SLO makes it's money off of oil and gas leases. Hundreds of millions in a year..

3)it is not a law it is policy. A new State Land Commissioner can come in and make the change statewide and we can all camp on state trust land. As you can imagine this is VERY Political and breaks down along party lines.

4) This is what is so scary about the transfer of federal lands to state lands. Under the Feds we have access, if it goes to State Trust it is subject to political whims..

5) Elections matter...

Jason

[QCwtAddict]

Well said Jason. My point was that state land is not managed for the public access, it is managed to raise money and they set their own rules. My understanding is that we have no RIGHT to access that state land, it is merely a privilege that the state allows if we pay for access via a permit.

[1uofacat]

There are a bunch of things to unpack with your reply.

1) Non-hunters can gain access to State Trust Lands by purchasing a permit. - That being said the SLO has two LOE's...

2) The Dept of Game and Fish pays the SLO 2 mill for hunter/angler access.... This was raised from 600,000 recently. This is pocket change as the SLO makes it's money off of oil and gas leases. Hundreds of millions in a year..

3)it is not a law it is policy. A new State Land Commissioner can come in and make the change statewide and we can all camp on state trust land. As you can imagine this is VERY Political and breaks down along party lines.

4) This is what is so scary about the transfer of federal lands to state lands. Under the Feds we have access, if it goes to State Trust it is subject to political whims..

5) Elections matter...

Jason

OK, back up a moment. Are you referring to NM or AZ? Is it the same for both states? I'm assuming you are referring to NM given the oil/gas lease comment and whiile living in NM gas and oil leases were "everywhere" in northern NM. I also am aware that in AZ anyone can purchase a SLD access permit, which was not very much as I recall (like $15/year?). While some do purchase a permit, I've personally never heard of anyone buying a SLD access permit in AZ.

 

Regardless, what I was responding to was that I disagreed with a rancher, who pays as little as 10-15% of his profits/animal, having the right to tell those who hunt whether or not we have his permission to camp on state land, which he is using for profit. I'm was not talking about where the state makes their money from, although what you said was not surprising. In Arizona, hunters do not have to ask a rancher his permission if we were to camp on state BLM land. To me, that's ludicrous.

 

I'm not a proponent of transferring fed land to state as I saw it too often in AZ growing up where the BLM would purchase/trade prime hunting habitat for checkerboard and basically useless tracks of land elsewhere and then pat themselves on the back for doing it! Who knows what other "deals" were going on when some of those discussions were taking place.

 

As far as the policy comment, well, yes I agree that elections DO matter, a lot. I've never thought about who would enforce a policy given it's not law, which I recall was a discussion when the whole SLO starting to charge for access came up in AZ many years ago. I do recall that the AZGFD stated immediately that those who carry a valid hunting and/or fishing license have access to all AZ State BLM land.

[Red Sparky]

To clarify we are talking about State Trust land in NM. State Trust land and BLM are different agencies that manage the land. State Trust land is administered by the State Land Commissioner to benefit schools, etc.. Here there is no camping on State Trust Land but BLM which is administered by the Feds you can camp on. The problem is when this was established we got the checkerboard. So private landowners can block off State Trust land to public access, you can't corner hop legally. They can do the same thing for any lease holder so the ranchers benefit by leasing the land which they could block off anyhow. If you want to hunt legally accessed State Trust land the primary lease holder can say " It is calving season, we are drilling a new well and it isn't safe,etc." and hunting is not happening there. Also you have crooked land deals as State Trust land that is not profitable, through state charter, must be gotten rid of. That is what happened in Unit 9 and why the elk hunting there now sucks.

 

I can give you another example in Unit 21, not sure if it is A or B, but a corner was comprised of private, State Trust, and Forest. The road went through a mile of State Trust land and about 100 yards of private so he locked the gate until the forest was used to bypass his locked gate. He swapped land on the east side in the creosote flats that he owned for the State land by his locked gate. Now there is no way to access the forest from there so he has all that forest service land for his private clients that he sells LO tags to. As a side note the USFS closed the roads in that area under the travel management plan so you can't get in from the east side.

[Flingingarrowsbro]

1uofacat,

What is State BLM land you keep referring to?

Full grown cattle are worth $1500-2000? A pair is worth $1100 at the moment. A 2yr old maybe $900

Ranchers state grazing fees are low compared to a private lease, but they provide so many benefits in terms of stewardship that the state could never afford. (Thousands upon a thousands of miles of pipelines, wells and troughs that sustain wildlife populations)

The State sets the amount of livestock each permit can carry. What you may think is overgrazing, judging by all the other misinformation you have, probably isnt as overgrazed as you think.

It does not benefit someone to overgraze, it costs too much to feed hay and hurts the resale value of the ranch if they were ever to sell.

Throw out the rich hobby ranchers that buy ranchers for tax write-offs or the generational ranchers who have had ranchers in the family for the last hundred years, I dont know a lot of wealthy or even middle class ranchers. Many are scraping by from year to year.

I imagine if you owned a state grazing lease you would prefer people not camp on the land you lease either. The littering and vandalism that occurs would drive you absolutely crazy.

[1uofacat]

1uofacat,

What is State BLM land you keep referring to?

Full grown cattle are worth $1500-2000? A pair is worth $1100 at the moment. A 2yr old maybe $900

Ranchers state grazing fees are low compared to a private lease, but they provide so many benefits in terms of stewardship that the state could never afford. (Thousands upon a thousands of miles of pipelines, wells and troughs that sustain wildlife populations)

The State sets the amount of livestock each permit can carry. What you may think is overgrazing, judging by all the other misinformation you have, probably isnt as overgrazed as you think.

It does not benefit someone to overgraze, it costs too much to feed hay and hurts the resale value of the ranch if they were ever to sell.

Throw out the rich hobby ranchers that buy ranchers for tax write-offs or the generational ranchers who have had ranchers in the family for the last hundred years, I dont know a lot of wealthy or even middle class ranchers. Many are scraping by from year to year.

I imagine if you owned a state grazing lease you would prefer people not camp on the land you lease either. The littering and vandalism that occurs would drive you absolutely crazy.

Fling,

I was referring to NM where primary lease holders can (evidently) prevent access and/or camping for those who hunt. Ignore the "State BLM" reference, it was used incorrectly. Yes, there is a difference between State Trust Land and BLM land... sorry if my comment on that was confusing, most probably knew what I was getting at.

 

As far as the financial data I was using, it was from simple/quick searches that yielded those numbers... i.e. $6/mo charge for a cow/calf MU (month unit) in New Mexico from a cpl years ago (an increase in 2016 as I recall). I also read where beef prices have fallen in recent years as well, but had nothing to compare what others said cattle was worth given "recent" price drops. Your data is likely much more accurate. That said, grazing fees would then account for 20% of the animal's "worth" as opposed to 10% in a two year period.

 

Regarding over-grazing... it is a problem, in MY opinion, in some areas... not always, but it happens more often than not as far as I'm concerned. Perhaps not to the point of permanent/long-term damage (soil and/or erosion), but it certainly affects wild animals naturally living in the area. That said, I have a hard time believing that those who issue grazing permits actually get away from their desks to see if over-grazing is a problem as I've seen it a lot in the 40+ years I've hunted deer and elk in Arizona. Back in my early days it was a widespread problem regardless of the garbage we would hear about additional benefits from grazing rights... The damage never seemed to equate to the "stated" benefits. ...and for the record, that's not "misinformation", that's looking at one side of a fence that has significantly more vegetation (grasses and forbes) than the other side where the cattle were. I have no idea why you thought I couldn't or wasn't seeing it for myself. This was about seeing it happen for decades and hoping every year that cattle aren't moved into specific areas every season when I'm fortunate enough to have a tag.

 

For some, this is their livelihood, and I get that. I don't personally like it really, but I get it. As far as I'm concerned, the worse thing that can happen to a favorite hunting location is to have a large herd of cattle moved into it before or during a hunting season. They eat everything in sight and crap everywhere, including in tanks or on mineral licks, because that's what they do. When that happens, one often has to move/hunt somewhere else, because cattle can and typically do "ruin" an area for any given season as they're left there for a several months... until it approaches "overgrazing", but hopefully not too long as it would then start cutting into profits... and I get that too.

 

& yes, I like eating beef, just wish they weren't allowed to graze where I hunt. It's a business for both the rancher as well as the state where the almighty $ takes precedence over wildlife every time. Do you deny that? I don't want to hijack this thread to get into an overgrazing argument, but it's not surprising that people on either side of the fence feel opposite about livestock and grazing rights. Keep in mind that there are many studies that show that elk and heavy cattle use are not compatible, period.

 

As far as your last comment and not wanting camping where "my" cattle were, if I had some; I'd probably not have any issues hunters being nearby because I know that "true hunters" do not leave trash everywhere, nor do they harass wildlife or livestock. They respect the entire outdoor experience, and what's more they'll report any violations they see to authorities! Just like I am comforted by others that have CCW permit and carry in public places, I too would welcome "hunters" if I owned cattle. The people you speak of are not true "hunters" IMHO, they are vandals and lawbreakers so please don't lump them in with us. It's unfortunate that those types of people are associated with hunters, but just because they can and do hunt, I do not refer to them as hunters, I refer to them as SCUM that spends time outdoors that shoot at things, sometimes legally, but often not.

[Flingingarrowsbro]

1uofacat,

I will try to address each of your points. Through all of this, my attempt is for you to look at the whole picture. I hunt coues every year, I have 2 daughter and a wife that all killed a coues the last 2 years and love to hunt myself. I have a daughter who also has an elk tag this winter. I love to hunt as much as anyone. I want access like everyone else. I also worked for ASLD as a range specialist in the past. I saw first hand how much work had been done in the past to calculate carrying capacity for each permit. There is a 20+ study the Arizona Land Dept and AZGFD has been doing on the Chevrolet butte, diablo canyon and flying M ranches on the effects and and overlap of grazing of cattle and elk. Moderate stocking rates do not have a negative effect on elk. ASLD has set grazing now numbers at moderate levels. Heavy grazing isnt good for any animal, cattle included.

Looking at one side of the fence, thats not misinformation, thats ignorance. The side that has cattle will obviously have less forage. But has it occurred to you that the side that looks better was also grazed the year before and depending on the rotation hasnt been grazed yet that year? Also many studies across the West show moderate grazing has a positive impact on forages.

The highs of the cattle market was about a 2 year isolated event, that was the exception not the norm. Like I said, your everyday rancher is not getting rich, if they get 2-3% ROI that is considered doing well.

Cattle cannot ruin a hunt. There is so much access and huntable areas that if your reasoning is cattle make your hunting area bad then you are not trying too hard.

Working at ASLD, I have seen solar panels stolen, wiring pulled from wells, and storage tanks shot to pieces. Vandalism to one storage tank could cost 5k. One cow that is shot is 1k. The first time you had to pay 5k for a new storage tank would make you pretty upset, after the second and third, just imagine the anger you would feel. I used to deal with those issues on a weekly basis. I guarantee after you lost 15k due to a few bad apples, you wouldnt be so welcoming.

[Flingingarrowsbro]

For reference, moderate stocking rate shoots for 35-50% utilization.

[Flingingarrowsbro]

Here is a study to look at, one of many. This one in particular shows the areas that had no grazing had the least amount of diversity and was over run by cactus.

 

https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/30180000/Hart/25.%20Hart%202001.pdf

[Flingingarrowsbro]

https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/rangelands/article/view/12129/11407

[jamaro]

You can work yourself into circular arguments with all this... Bottom line is that it isn't public land, and you can only camp in very few places. The Lessee has alot of say on the land. You can't even cut wood or gather food. Get a small game license and it solves a lot of access problems.

 

I think we all understand that in some years that the ranching business is tough but it is just that, a business on land that they don't own. Not all business succeed. Did you know you can get a bank loan against leased land??? Crazy... Nobody is forcing lessees to run a business on State Trust Land, it is a choice.

During the SLO Primaries this year access was a hotly contested issue. I think we have a real shot and getting more access if we can change the party in power.

[Red Sparky]

Even with the amount of State Trust land in that unit that you can't camp on, that unit is ringed by FS that you can camp on you will just have to drive a little bit. There is FS in unit 13,17,16C,16D and 21 and those all ring unit 16E.