CIBOLA COUNTY, N.M. – The New Mexico Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish and the New Mexico State Game Commission in a lawsuit brought by Catron County landowners who argued the state’s management of elk damaged their private property.
In an opinion filed June 3, the Court of Appeals concluded that the state cannot be held liable for a constitutional “taking” or nuisance claim simply because wild elk enter and damage private land.
The case was brought by several property owners and ranching interests in Catron County. They argued that the state’s elk management system, including hunting license rules, landowner elk permits and depredation assistance programs, allowed elk populations to grow in ways that damaged fences, crops, forage and private property.
The court acknowledged that elk have a presence on private property in Catron County, but ruled that the animals’ movements are not legally the same as the state physically occupying private land.
Judge Katherine A. Wray, writing for the court, explained that New Mexico holds wildlife in trust for the public, but does not “own” or control wild animals in the same way it controls a public works project or government facility.
The court also rejected the argument that the elk damage amounted to an unconstitutional taking of private property. Under the New Mexico Constitution, private property cannot be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation. However, the court found that the state’s elk regulations did not require elk to be on private property, did not give elk a legal right to enter private property, and did not prevent landowners from building fences or otherwise trying to keep elk out.
The landowners also argued that the state’s management of the elk population created a nuisance. A lower court had previously allowed that claim to move forward, but the Court of Appeals reversed that portion of the case.
The appeals court found that Game and Fish and the Game Commission were acting under authority granted by state law.
The court said decisions about elk population levels, hunting opportunities, landowner permits and depredation programs fall within the agencies’ lawful discretion.
The ruling does not mean landowners have no way to seek changes. The court noted that challenges to Game Commission rules can be brought through the public rulemaking process, and broader changes to wildlife policy would need to come from the Legislature.
The decision is significant because it reinforces the state’s broad authority over wildlife management while limiting the ability of private landowners to recover damages from the state for harm caused by wild animals.
The case will now return to district court for proceedings consistent with the appeals court’s ruling.