I was a bit reluctant to post this one since the resident expert will no doubt tell how great this is that the state allows someone to indiscriminately slaughter wildlife. BUT...here it is in all it's gory details...-TONY

VIDEO

By Jeff Jones Copyright -- Albuquerque Journal

A northern New Mexico rancher using a shotgun and an all-terrain vehicle has chased down and shot dozens of antelope feeding in his wheat field, according to the state Game and Fish Department. The agency says Cimarron-area rancher Neal Trujillo was "less than cooperative" about finding another solution last month before he began shooting the animals, which is legal for landowners under a controversial state law.

Game and Fish said at least 39 antelope have been killed at the ranch, not including any that might have run off and weren't located by game officers. Some of the 39 were maimed but not killed by the shotgun blasts and had to be put out of their misery by the officers.

"It's a hard one to swallow," Lief Ahlm, chief of the agency's northeast-area office, said Monday.

Trujillo, meanwhile, said that he tried repeatedly to work with Game and Fish. But he said he won't abide by one of their conditions for reinforcing a fence to help keep out the antelope, which are also known as pronghorns.

"I've called the game department I don't know how many times trying to work this out," he said in a telephone interview Monday. "I didn't just go out and start shooting antelope." Trujillo added: "I'm sure there are a lot of bleeding hearts out there that don't want the antelope shot. But every time an antelope takes a bite out of my field, he's taking money out of my pocket."

The antelope carcass count from Trujillo's property is sure to reignite the debate over a controversial 1997 law that allows New Mexico farmers and ranchers to immediately kill game that threatens their crops.

"This law needs to be overturned," said New Mexico Wildlife Federation Director Jeremy Vesbach, adding that his organization will push for that during next year's legislative session. A shotgun, which fires a group of small pellets rather than a single, larger-caliber bullet, is not meant for big-game hunting— and Vesbach condemned the shotgun killings. "This was absolutely an inhumane act," he said.

Trujillo said, "I'm not a very good shot with a rifle."

Ahlm said Trujillo had about 200 antelope in his Colfax County winter-wheat field, and an agency report shows that officers in late February and early March hazed the speedy animals off the property with ATVs and other vehicles.

Antelope usually go under barbed-wire fences rather than over them. And Ahlm said Game and Fish offered to give Trujillo the materials— and some of the labor— needed to reinforce his fence to keep the animals out on the condition that Trujillo sign a contract agreeing to maintain the fence at his expense. Trujillo declined the contract deal.

Game and Fish fixed one portion of the fence anyway, but Ahlm said about 50 antelope continued to get into the wheat field.

"We offered him the interventions at our disposal," Ahlm said of Trujillo. But "I'd look at him as being certainly less than cooperative."

The Game and Fish report said Trujillo on March 6 reported he'd shot some antelope. The killings continued later into March, the report said, adding that Trujillo's adult son, Neal Trujillo Jr., also reported killing some of them.

The last reported shootings took place March 24, when officers found 18 dead antelope. That morning, before the shootings were reported, an officer had tried to haze the antelope off the wheat with noise-making devices.

On that day, "Trujillo says he has (Game and Fish's) 'attention now ... I got tired of shooting antelope,' '' the report said.

Trujillo said Monday that Game and Fish made only a "halfhearted effort" at pushing the antelope away from his property. He said he didn't want to sign the fencing contract because elk, which also come onto the land, tear up the fencing.

"Why would I want to maintain something that I know is going to be torn up all the time?" he asked, adding that Game and Fish would be "more than welcome" to reinforce and maintain the fence on its own.

Trujillo said that although most of the animals are now gone, he believes the problem will recur this fall when his next crop of winter wheat greens up while the rest of the landscape turns brown. When that happens, "I've got the green spot," he said.

The 1997 law that allows ranchers to shoot crop-threatening game is known as the Jennings Law. It is named after its sponsor, Sen. Tim Jennings, D-Roswell, who is now the Senate president pro tem. The law allows the no-strings-attached killing of wildlife that presents an "immediate threat" to life or property, specifying only that the shootings be reported within 24 hours.

After a 2003 incident in which another rancher killed 19 elk that he said were causing heavy crop damage, some lawmakers and Gov. Bill Richardson sought to change the law. Jennings said in a telephone interview Monday that while he's willing to take another look at the law, he believes Game and Fish needs to do a better job of handling ranchers' crop-damage complaints.

Jennings said, "I don't condone any indiscriminate killing of animals." But he added the 200 antelope on Trujillo's ranch were eating the equivalent of what 40 cows would eat. "His wheat is his livelihood— it's just like money in the bank," Jennings said. "Could there be some changes? Yes, there could," Jennings said of the law. "But there has to be some changes that go both ways."

This is sure a tough situation. You have a guy who is raising a crop to support his family, ranch and way of life. That crop, which is worth a bundle this year, is being eaten by wildlife. I am not for the blanket use of deadly force, but the man should have to be able to protect his livelihood. The NM DNR should be doing something more. Utah has a law which states the landowner must give the DWR 48 hours notice before taking action.

Here is my situation: Our ranch here in Utah has over 150 head of elk on it, which means we raise and support more than 10% of the unit's elk population. The unit offers no over-the-counter bull permits. The DWR offers no landowner bull elk tags. We do get a couple antlerless tags, which are a drop in the bucket as a source for recouping losses associated with the elk. This portion of the unit has not had a cow hunt for 3 years, (not that we want the general public hunting our land for cows - both elk and slow). I get to spend 2-4 days repairing fence which the elk tear-up so our cows can be turned out. Then I spend 4-12 hours each week during the summer repairing the fence. I have installed, at my expense, calf crossings and gates which help, but the elk still use other travel corridors. Imagine what 150 elk eat every day. Really, think about that. They destroy alfalfa fields. They tear-up the meadows. They eat the oak brush and aspen.

I like the elk. I am just sick of raising something I can not use and spending my money to do it. The DWR, if I complained loud enough, probably would give antlerless tags to the general public, but with today's liability problems and the thought of 50 strangers hunting our ranch scares me more than the elk.

I am just saying that there can be much more to a story than the one side we are presented with.

While I personally hate to hear this kind of news the key difference between this thread and the previous one is this.

quote:

The 1997 law that allows ranchers to shoot crop-threatening game is known as the Jennings Law. It is named after its sponsor, Sen. Tim Jennings, D-Roswell, who is now the Senate president pro tem. The law allows the no-strings-attached killing of wildlife that presents an "immediate threat" to life or property, specifying only that the shootings be reported within 24 hours.

While I don't know the answer there should be a better way to handle these kinds of situations.

I do understand a landowners concern about letting the public on his property in our litigous (sp?) society. And if lawmakers can make laws allowing the wholesale butchery of our game animals it sure seems to me that they could also pass laws that absolve a landowner of liability when that landowner allows acces to individuals at a "reasonable" ( not sure how to define that ) rate.

Although this guy had every legal right to do what he did, they should be able to get him for cruel and unusual punishment to animals. Letting those animals suffer the way he did, they ought to do the same to him and see how he likes it. No doubt, I'd go after him on the cruelty to animals after watching the video!!

Every hunter/angler in NM is required to purchase a Habitat Management & Access Validation. Fee is $4. This money is supposed to be used to improve habitat etc. I am confused that after several years of paying this fee, the NMDG&F can't seem to find a place rent and plant some wheat of their own. I guess spending the money that way would conflict with studies of snails and wolves that never seem to get published since they don't say what the Greenies want.

It's business as usual here in NM....

quote:

Originally posted by MC:
I like the elk. I am just sick of raising something I can not use and spending my money to do it.

Thats a problem I don't think folks who own small not for profit pieces of real estate, (like a home,) understand. Calling wildlife "Public Resource," really borders on ludicrous. Any living being, plant, animal or insect living or visiting on private property is using the private property owners financial resources. In the case of geese or big game in summer crops, the "use," can be to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars. In some cases, wildlife can be a real financial benefit to a farmer, but in many it's a severe detriment.

It's hardly a matter of survival!

Neal Trujillo has been paid almost $180,000.00 in direct federal subsidies over the past 10 years.
(Source: EWG farm subsidy database.)

$19,012 of this was for conservation(!) subsidies.
$79,336 was for disaster subsidies.
$75,166 was for commodity subsidies.

Uncle Sam has paid Mr. Trujillo $74,146 in wheat subsidies and a mere $28,809 in livestock subsidies.

I don't know if Neal Trujillo leases his property for hunting or offers landowner vouchers to the highest bidder. Last November I hunted for elk on a ranch in Cimarron, NM and paid a hefty price for the landowner voucher tag. (There's a LOT of antelope in the area. I would have been happy to pay a few hundred $$ more for some doe antelope tags had they been available to me.)

I'm not passing judgement on this landowner as everything he's done is appearantly legal. (If Uncle Sam offered me $180,000 I sure as hell wouldn't turn it down!) But I can't help but think the damage done by a handful of speed goats pales in comparason to the pile of money doled out to Neal Trujillo over the years, courtesy of us taxpayers. And I'm sure those subsidy payments to Mr. Trujillo aren't going to stop anytime soon.

quote:

But I can't help but think the damage done by a handful of speed goats pales in comparason to the pile of money doled out to Neal Trujillo over the years, courtesy of us taxpayers

That puts a different spin on the story! But he still hasn't broken the law.

I have not seen the video ( dial up at home ) and don't know a bout cruelty charges.

$180,000 is a lot of dough but over 10 yrs $18k a yr is nothing. I have family in Kentucky being paid many times that not to grow tobacco.
So who cares the man is taking what is offered to American ranchers and farmers. It has nothing to do with his wildlife problem.
Thats like saying a person who collected unemployment for part of the year shouldn't get a tax refund for the time he was earning a greater income.

You may think $18K per year is "nothing" but I'd be tickled pink to get that sort of cash! Uncle Sam gives me diddly-squat. In fact he picks my pocket every week. From what I've been told (don't know for sure) any farmer or rancher who pays income tax has an idiot for an accountant.

My point is not to debate farm subsidies. (Although I personally believe that welfare doles in any form are wrong.) This landowner took what was offered to him and had every right to do so. My point is that it isn't a matter of survival. Mr. Trujillo is certainly not about lose his property or livelyhood on account of some hungry antelope. The taxpayers will see to that!

Regarding wildlife damage, the Montana Supreme court gave an intersting opinion.

Back in the 1940's a wealthy rancher was charged with illegally killing a handful of elk that were eating his hay. Rather than pay the nominal (at that time) fine, he had the will and means to take the case all the way to the state supreme court.

He argued that he had every right to kill animals that interfered with his means of earning a living. He brought up the issue of property rights and state's inability or unwillingness to keep "their" animals off of his land.

The state prevailed. To paraphrase (I'm no lawyer and I don't remember the ruling verbatim) the court stated that in Montana a person certainly has every right to buy and hold property and to profit and make a living from it. However the state offers no guarantees of profit or the ability to make a living.

The court went on to point out that although wildlife is managed as a public resource it is a naturally occuring resource. Further, it is well known that lots of elk live in Monatana and that elk will wander where they will. Anybody who obtains property in the state of Montana does so with the knowledge that elk are (or may be) present. If elk are going to be a problem it is not in your best interest to own property in Montana. The ruling of the court also stated that ownership of property does give a landowner any right to break laws as he/she sees fit.

The situation in NM may be different. As I understand it wildlife was scarce until fairly recently. There may have been few, if any game animals to cause damage when Neal Trujillo either bought or inhereted his land. At that time he didn't choose to live where the antelope play because there probably weren't any.

There's another fact of life in the U.S. It's called Manifest Destiny. Contained in that bit of law is the fact that the United States Govt. owns all the land and all the water out to 200 miles from shore in the U.S. and it's possessions. If you don't believe that just wait until the Govt has some use for your privately owned land. If New Mexico passes such a law that allows the sort of activity described above then the New Mexico legislature has done a great disservice to it's constituency.

I've had deer get into stuff and I'm as much a hunter as there is and, frankly, it never occurred to me to kill them. I guess there's a difference. I never tried to make a living in farming/ranching and I never took a dime of my own money that the Govt. so magnanimously could have given back to me. It sounds like arrogance to me to do what he. Legal Arrogance.

Alan

I have been around a lot of winter wheat fields,and the goats do love them but I wonder how much damage he did to his wheat chasing goats around with a 4 whlr. compared to what the antelope were eating, I have never had any one say what the goats eat reduce the production, they eat the leaves, not the heads, at least that is the way it is here. Legal or not he is a jerk for not killing them cleanly.

quote:

Originally posted by ELKMAN2:
Legal or not he is a jerk for not killing them cleanly.

My thoughts exactly. The man admitted he could not shoot a rifle well. He should have had someone else do the culling. I watched that video, and even though the intention was to kill the animals, that guy let them suffer until NM wardens showed up to finish them. You'd think he could have some form of animal cruelty charges brought against him.

For informational purposes, this is the NM law that covers this issue. -TONY

*******************

17-2-7.2. Landowner taking; conditions; department responsibilities.

A. A landowner or lessee, or employee of either, may take or kill an animal on private land, in which they have an ownership or leasehold interest, including game animals and other quadrupeds, game birds and fowl, that presents an immediate threat to human life or an immediate threat of damage to property, including crops; provided, however, that the taking or killing is reported to the department of game and fish within twenty-four hours and before the removal of the carcass of the animal killed, in accordance with regulations adopted by the commission.

B. A landowner or lessee, or employee of either, may take or kill animals on private land, in which they have an ownership or leasehold interest, including game animals and other quadrupeds, game birds and fowl, that present a threat to human life or damage to property, including crops, according to regulations adopted by the commission.

The regulations shall:

(1) provide a method for filing a complaint to the department by the landowner or lessee, or employee of either of them, of the existence of a depredation problem;

(2) provide for various departmental interventions, depending upon the type of animal and depredation;

(3) require the department to offer at least three different interventions, if practical;

(4) require the department to respond to the initial and any subsequent complaints within ten days with an intervention response to the complaint, and to carry out the intervention, if agreed upon between the department and the landowner, within five days of that agreement;

(5) permit the landowner or lessee to reject for good cause the interventions offered by the department; (in this case, his "good cause" in rejecting the fence offer was he didn't want to foot the bill for future maintenance)

(6) require a landowner or lessee to demonstrate that the property depredation is greater in value than the value of any wildlife-related income or fee collected by the landowner or lessee for permission to take or kill an animal of the same species, on the private property or portion of the private property identified in the complaint as the location where the depredation occurred; and

(7) permit the landowner, lessee or employee, when interventions by the department have not been successful and after one year from the date of the filing of the initial complaint, to kill or take an animal believed responsible for property depredation.

C. For purposes of this section:

(1) "commission" means the state game commission;

(2) "department" means the department of game and fish; and

(3) "intervention" means a solution proposed by the department to eliminate the depredation

If I remember my Ag.Sci. learnin right, one of the things you do to invrease sheat production is to turn the cows in on the wheat. The cows eat the tops out of the wheat and causes it to branch out from the base, making more stalks per plant. It will be interesting to know if Mr. Trujillo had crop insurance. I can't imagine doing less damage by chasing the Pronghorns than they were doing by themselves.

Alan

You want to reimburse him for lost income? Thought not.

No wait, I'm sorry. I just watched the video. Neal Trujillo should be chased around on a 4 wheeler and shot at with a shotgun. Don't kill him, just leave him on his own out in the field when he was too messed up to run any more.

Alan

As the owner and operator of a sizable Great Plains agricultural operation, I am more puzzled about what is NOT being said in the media releases than I am in what has been offered up for public consumption. Quite frankly, the "facts" (factoids?) just don't make sense here.

I have dozens, if not hundreds (who counts?), of Antelope eating not only my wheat, but corn, sunflowers, milo, millet and anything else I can coax into growing in this harsh environment. They do a fair amount of damage. The state doesn't care. Nothing new there. However, Mr. Trujillo's situation seems "odd" to me. Most of the video shots seem to show dead and dying animals laying in and near what appears to be a set of improvements...like a farmyard or headquarters. I can tell you with absolute certainty that while Antelope will wander into the yard, they won't stay there when harrassed. And they won't come back to be harrassed over and over again. No way did this guy shoot 39 (or more) Antelope with a shotgun and a four-wheeler. With that kind of activity, after the 1st shot they are in the next county. Frankly, unless you literally have hundreds of animals in a herd, they aren't that hard to haze off the property. "Ol Shep" works pretty well. Apparently Mr. Trujillo has a pretty lazy dog.

I have neighbors who feel like Trujillo. They would happily kill every last Antelope. But they don't...because they are lazy too. They chase a few with the four-wheeler, they sic the dogs on them, they nose after them in a pickup, they lob a few shots in their direction---and you know what?...the goats leave.

Now, if you have the only wheat field for miles around you have a definite problem. I'm guessing that is the case in Colfax county. There's a LOT of grass there and very little wheat. Still, with daily encouragement those animals would have found a quieter place to be. There is more going on here than is being reported because someone would have to devote an awful lot of time to accomplish this kind of killing in this manner. Once Antelope get chased a few times it's VERY difficult to approach within a half-mile of them with a vehicle. Either they didn't use shotguns or a whole bunch of target shooters were involved. Kinda like the recent buffalo killings in Park county Colorado this winter.

I don't condone Mr. Trujillo's actions but I understand his frustrations. This sounds much more like a personal problem that he has with someone in the New Mexico DOW.

As for myself, we just wait until fall and fill all of our licenses. However, the dogs do get some exercise in the off-season. If any Antelope ever die from that, it's only from laughter.

The shootings took place over the course of a month, not all at one time. -TONY

OK, I watched the video and I agree with Plainview.

quote:

This sounds much more like a personal problem that he has with someone in the New Mexico DOW.

We graze our dormant alfalfa in winter. Our friends in Kansas graze their winter wheat during winter months. I agree the guy is a loser for doing what he did based off this part of the story. I just think there may be more to the story.

I'm not for reimbursing him for anything. Agriculture is a tough business. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. I expected to see antelope laying in a wheat field. If what I saw on the video was his wheat field, then he's not much of a wheat farmer. I'll go along with the "there's more to the story" crowd. In the meatime, "Run Neal, Run!"

Alan

Trujillo said, "I'm not a very good shot with a rifle."

Looks like he's not very good with a shotgun either. Could he at least use buckshot? Can't the state at least mandate a cleaner kill method?

what was there first the animals or the rancher - farmer i'll bet on the animals
so live with it and be a good stewart of the land.

Shame on that guy for leaving these antelope wounded and dying.

Gotta love the idiot with the attitude who would say something as stupid as the heat/kitchen statement. State owned and managed entity is eating trampling (destroying) his living and he should just lay down and quit. What a f*cking moronic statement. You urban dwellers should engage your brain clutch before your typing finger. I read your left wing wacko posts on the colo deal and you get stupider every statement.
And duck who was in CA first you or the Indians. Or is that different. You and JR. should live together. Mark

quote:

Originally posted by Hunt-ducks:
what was there first the animals or the rancher - farmer i'll bet on the animals
so live with it and be a good stewart of the land.

I can only assume you have invited the locally displaced wildlife to co habitate with you in the confines of your condo complex?

Don't kid yourself ducks, you and I both are responsible for evicting lots of wildlife from their habitat.

quote:

Originally posted by graybird:
Although this guy had every legal right to do what he did, they should be able to get him for cruel and unusual punishment to animals.

thats classic, cruel and unusual punishment to animals.

Plainview,
You brought up some great points. The hardest thing to hunt is an antelope you missed. Cause they are long gone after the first shot! And the dogs are another good point. Don't know any farmer or rancher without one. Maybe this guy has some lap dog for protection.
I have no problem with a rancher or farmer taking some wildlife off his property to protect his income. However, if done, there should be threat of some penalty/reciprocations for the wildlife taken such as loss of some or all subsidies.

Wow! Number 35404. Don't rely on your ESP as a day job. I've never been called a Left-wing Wacko before. I've never been called an urban-dweller before either. I suppose I've been called a moron before but I can't say for sure. I can only figure you don't know what you're talking about, either. You must be bitter about something. What Trujillo did was wrong. He could have accomplished his ends without doing it the way he did.

You have a nice day Mr. Number 35404.

Alan

Whew! Just saw the video. Any person that would leave animals suffering like this has got more of a problem than winter wheat. He is seriouly lacking...........( humanity)??????

If this is true and he left these animals suffering like that then HE should be put down.

quote:

Originally posted by KSTEPHENS:

quote:

Originally posted by graybird:
Although this guy had every legal right to do what he did, they should be able to get him for cruel and unusual punishment to animals.

thats classic, cruel and unusual punishment to animals.

So what do you call it then?

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:
Whew! Just saw the video. Any person that would leave animals suffering like this has got more of a problem than winter wheat. He is seriouly lacking...........( humanity)??????

If this is true and he left these animals suffering like that then HE should be put down.

+1. Leaving those animals wounded like that is uncalled for.

I think 80% of all hunters render cruel and usual punishment to animals, the other 20% just kill them on the first shot.

For certain, that is horrible and wrong to wound the animals like shown in the video and not finish the job.

Once we "put down" all the murderers, rapists, sex abusers, and pedophiles then we can start with people who commit "crimes" against animals.

quote:

Originally posted by graybird:

quote:

Originally posted by KSTEPHENS:

quote:

Originally posted by graybird:
Although this guy had every legal right to do what he did, they should be able to get him for cruel and unusual punishment to animals.

thats classic, cruel and unusual punishment to animals.

So what do you call it then?

Nothing different than what you do when you put out a mousetrap or fireant powder.

Extermination.

Noone agree's with clubbing baby seals, right?
well if you had a few thousand underneath your kitchen sink you wouldnt worry about it, huh?

Its a different viewpoint, thats all. One mans vermin is another mans pet.

It's like killing prarie dogs. Some people would be enraged while some see it as a needed activity.
this guy doesnt see pronghorns as anything other than vermin...
AND his state law allows him to do what he's doing.

Who is worse the farmer that shot it? , or the asshole taking the video, kicking the wounded doe so the Jury could see it was still alive, any real man would have walked up & popped it in the head & been done with it!!

quote:

Once we "put down" all the murderers, rapists, sex abusers, and pedophiles then we can start with people who commit "crimes" against animals.

+1

But I don't think it would be too hard to get them all at once.

From the statement by the fish cop this fellow tried the "right" way. They told him to close in the bottom of his fence. Antelope don't only go under wire but over and thru it. Why would the fish cop not get their plane and chase the goats onto state owned grass?? Gov't employees were too lazy, enept to get it done. It's always up to the rural landowner to look after 'his' problem. If there were 200 antelope on your back lawn by the pool would you accept the statement "fix your fence' If my livestock get out 'and they do' it's up to me to pay any damages. If the state's livestock get out why should I suffer the damages. For the most part farmers feed the wildlife all over north america and get nothing but bullshit out of it.
Also if you ever fired a shot at speed goats you would know they don't stick around long. Something is real fishy about all these goats laying around wounded. I suspect the guy with the camera is not telling the truth here and there may have been more than 1 shooter.
You guys with the idea that it's up to farmers to look after 'the people's' wildlife need to see how that would fit in your world. Mr. 35404.

35404 The indians lost.

SK all the animals I have displaced got ate.

anyone want to bet NM changes it's laws on landowners shooting BG animals just let PETA get hold of that video, Mr. Trejullo will be portrayed as a hunter, who wants him repersenting them not me maybe scott kink and 34404 does, you think Vick had the shit hit the fan just wait if this SOB gets in the wrong hands.

got to go kill some sparrows that are eating the fruit in my trees

If any of you had a clue how things were here in New Mexico, you might have some different views. We have quite a different culture here and it's not that cut and dry.
Poster 35404, I suggest that you rethink before you open your mouth full of ignorance again.

Unless ya'll know the ins and outs of the situation, I don't think you can make judgements. Mr Trujillo is just a cry baby rancher that should be fined. But thanks to our jackass govenor, he probably won't. Either that or his cousin or brother-in-law will be the judge and throw it out.