The New Mexico Court of Appeals recently ruled that state wildlife officials are not responsible for elk damage to private property in Catron County, and halted a lower court’s trial to determine if the state’s wildlife policy there constitutes a “nuisance.”

A group of seven Catron County landowners sued the state in 2021, arguing that the state’s management of elk “caused a physical invasion” of herds occupying private properties for months at a time prompting severe damage to private property, fences and crops. They further argued the state’s rules limiting how property owners can “hunt, harm or remove the elk” violated their constitutional rights on private property.

Image

The crux of the case stems from wildlife management decisions made decades ago. After the native New Mexico Merriam’s elk were hunted to extinction in the early 1900s, the state reintroduced the Rocky Mountain elk to the area through the 1950s. According to court documents, the herd grew to a population of about 27,000 elk that moved throughout the region. The state limits how many elk can be hunted each year, but does have a program to allow for hunting on private property.

The dispute traces back to New Mexico's approach to wildlife management, which has evolved significantly since the state reintroduced Rocky Mountain elk to the region decades ago.

In a June 3 unanimous decision, the state Court of Appeals sided with New Mexico Department of Wildlife arguments that the state is not responsible for wildlife damages, even as the trustee of wildlife in the state.

“Trusteeship over wild animals does not by itself result in an occupation by the state if wild animals occupy private property,” the order stated.

The New Mexico Department of Wildlife celebrated the ruling in a statement to Source New Mexico, saying the ruling confirms that elk are “wild, free‑roaming animals,” and the state is not liable for their natural behavior.

“Our wildlife management actions are carried out in accordance with law, science, and public input,” the statement said. “We remain committed to working with landowners to address wildlife‑related concerns through the programs and tools already available.”

Image

The court also put a halt to a trial to determine if the elk’s impact constitutes a private and public “nuisance,” a legal term that typically refers to actions that unreasonably interferes with enjoyment of life and property.

The appeals court said a trial would “cast the judiciary as a semi-permanent and ill-suited administrator,” and said that any changes to the state’s hunting program should instead be done by the Legislature or through a rule-making process.

Pete Domenici Jr., the attorney representing the Catron County landowners, said his clients are considering whether to appeal to the New Mexico Supreme Court.

Domenici said that the Court of Appeals’ ruling ignored arguments that elk behavior is predictable, and that solutions such as elk fencing do not address continued issues between elk and people — such as car accidents.

“The image that these elk are traversing across Catron County is really not supported by the biology,” Domenici said. “The state should have taken that into account and realized that when these elk basically move into these areas that have high traffic and historic water resources, they’re not going to leave, and there really there’s no solution to that in this lawsuit.”