Frustration that has been building for years over how two elk hunting units are managed in the Jemez Mountains bubbled to the surface last week at a series of public meetings.
“There’s only (one) thing we can bank on is the damage done by elk,” Cornelio Salazar, who owns land near Cañones, said.
Salazar’s property lies within Big Game Hunting Unit 6C. Landowers in this unit have been complaining that the hunting in this unit has deteriorated over the years while at the same time, elk continue to damage their crops.
The state Game and Fish Department held four meetings last week to address these concerns and gauge public support for proposals that may address them. Two meetings were held in Rio Arriba County: Gallina on July 14 and Española on July 17.
The complaints stem from the state Game and Fish Department’s decision in 2001 to split Unit 6, which is located predominantly in the Jemez Mountains, into three units: 6A, 6B and 6C.
Unit 6 was originally divided by the Department in response to complaints by Los Alamos National Laboratory, the National Forest Service, Bandelier National Monument and several large landowners that there were too many elk and the herd needed to be reduced to alleviate the damage caused by the animals.
Different management techniques were applied to each new unit. Unit 6C was to be managed to reduce the herd on the east side of the Jemez Mountains, meaning more licenses would be available so a high harvest of elk could be maintained. Landowners and hunters in Unit 6A expressed the desire to maintain the population and improve the quality of the trophy hunting. Unit 6B encompasses the Valles Caldera National Preserve, which is required to manage itself as a working ranch so that it is self-sustaining by 2012.
It would appear that management objectives have been successful to an extent. The hunting in 6C has diminished to the extent that in the 2009-2010 Big Game Hunting rules, the Department instructs hunters that elk in that unit are low in number with scattered populations.
“We haven’t heard complaints from Bandelier or Los Alamos since then,” Darrel Weybright, Big Game Programs manager for the Department, said.
The trophy hunting in 6A has improved to the point at which landowner authorizations for bull elk, the desired trophy, can be sold for $2,500, according to outfitter Art Martinez.
However, landowners primarily in the Gallina and Coyote areas in 6C argued last week that they are still experiencing elk damage and that their hunting authorizations — if they are luck enough to get them — are worthless. Hunting authorizations are given to landowners in the units based on how much land they own. The larger the property, the more hunting authorizations the landowner receives.
This system has drawn fire from small landowners who grow irrigated crops, because they are sometimes allocated one or in some case no authorizations. While the majority of the 30 attendees in Gallina were small landowners seeking a way to be compensated for the damage by elk, the majority of 10 attendees at the final meeting in Española were hunters seeking to improve the elk hunting.
“The problem is the majority of the elk come out of the Caldera March to July when the grass is tender,” said Chris Lovato, a Gallina landowner and a 6C hunting guide. “Once they start to get hunting pressure in September, they move back onto the Caldera.”
Daniel Arrietta, of Española, said that at one time the hunting in 6C was just as good as the hunting in Unit 6A and that he would like to see that again.
In response to the differing concerns of the landowners and hunter, the Department offered five different proposals at each public meeting. Stewart Liley, Elk Program Manager for the Department, presented the options.
1. The first proposal was that there be no change in the present hunting regulations. This drew no support in either Gallina or Española.
2. The next proposal was to leave Units 6A and 6C as they are, but reduce the number of licenses in Unit 6C to manage it for quality. The argument against this proposal is that it would reduce the hunting opportunities.
“We can grow elk there if that’s what you want,” Weybright said.
However, this would mean a reduction in hunting licenses in 6C. This proposal drew limited approval.
3. The next proposal was to combine Units 6A and 6C into one Unit, but the Department felt that this would result in a reduction in the overall number of licenses in order to properly manage the herd. This proposal has been opposed at previous meetings by landowners and outfitters in 6A, who feel that because the hunting at present is much better in 6A, the majority of hunters would go there. The increased hunting pressure would diminish their herd and lower the quality of hunting.
This proposal drew some support, but not a majority.
4. Another proposal is to change the boundaries of the units. The boundary on one proposal would move the Unit 6A boundary to the east and would move landowners in the Gallina and Coyote area into the unit. This would raise the value of their authorizations, but would not increase their number.
5. Another option was to change the boundary of 6C to the dividing line between the Cuba and Coyote Ranger District of the Santa Fe National Forest, increasing 6C in size and including parts of the San Pedro Parks Wilderness Area.
“That could work because then 6C could offer quality hunts in San Pedro,” Donald Serrano, of the National Forest Service said.
Although no consensus was reached among the different options, the Department said it would take the input from the public meetings and make a decision that they would present to the state Game Commission, who would then make a decision.
“We don’t at this point have a preferred proposal,” Weybright said.
At both Española and Gallina meetings, it was obvious something needed to be done. Both hunters and landowners expressed frustration at the lack of action on the part of the Department.
“We’ve had these meetings for years,” Salazar said. “It seems like we never get to first base.”