NMWF is against Wall and securing Southern Borders.

NMPaul · Mar 1, 2017

LAST EDITED ON Mar-02-17 AT 06:54AM (MST)[p]http://nmwildlife.org/news/coalition-conservation-faith-community-leaders-ask-governor-martinez-oppose-border-wall-new-mexico/

This organization has done a lot of things right. They have taken on issues that many other hunting advocacy groups are either bought off or will not address. However, I think they have really gone way off the reservation on this.

Why they have decided to apply whatever political influence they have towards not having a secure border is beyond me.

Their talking points on this are just bizarre. Bad for wild life??? How about the tons of garbage and trash left by illegals in the arroyos, the lawless people coming through there doing whatever they want.

I have always known the organization is run by a bunch of lefties, but, I try to be open minded.

A country is not a country unless they can control their borders.

In my opinion, they should stick to real wildlife issues and not try to make the leftist agenda a wildlife issue.

505 · Mar 2, 2017

I'm not surprised

smarba · Mar 2, 2017

Sheesh...most of the "reasons" stated have absolutely nothing to do with wildlife or wild lands. And very little to do with reality either.

cbat · Mar 2, 2017

Bunch of dumbasses

NMPaul · Mar 2, 2017

I can understand a Senator like Heinrich having to back the play of his party, but, there is no justification for hunting and fishing advocate group to get involved in partisan politics when it has nothing to do with hunting and fishing. In fact the argument can easily be made that a wall will protect our wilderness lands.

JACOB2006 · Mar 2, 2017

Nmwf only works on their own agenda. Once called them about a rancher shooting hundreds of elk and they did nothing. They also are huge supporters of wolves. There's way better places to donate money for the cause.

264mag · Mar 2, 2017

You can bet there is money involved somewhere.

leftturnabq · Mar 2, 2017

Agreed, can't understand how this has anything to do with wildlife in NM.

I've spent time hunting along the border, and if anything, heightened border security would make me a lot more comfortable and willing to take advantage of the wildlife opportunities available south of I-10.

Ropinfool · Mar 2, 2017

LAST EDITED ON Mar-02-17 AT 01:54PM (MST)[p]Nothing more then a bunch of left wing tree huggers!

mozey · Mar 2, 2017

Honest question because I don't know: is there a bunch of wildlife migrating back and forth across our border with Mexico?

If there's a bunch of B&C bucks doing it, could we at least wait until they're back on our side before we build that wall? ;-)

NMBOWHNTR27 · Mar 2, 2017

Yes I agree a wall in my opinion out weighs the amount of wildlife that actually cross back and forth across the border. NMWF does do some great things and not so great things. My opinion is back them up on the good things and call them out on the stuff that we hunter conservationists don't agree on.

ixsolracxi · Mar 2, 2017

the only wildlife migrating is coming and not going back...build the wall!!!

NMhunter4life · Mar 2, 2017

Half the time I agree with NMWF and the other half I think they are a bunch of communist, liberal, tree huggers. I do not think this letter was well written or thought out, but I do agree with part of it. Ecologically a physical wall on the border is not a great thing.

Honestly, a physical wall along the entire border is not really a realistic goal. In remote areas where there is nobody to watch the wall they will just dig under, climb over or cut through the thing. An actual physical wall would inhibit the movement of deer, javelina, mountain lions, jaguars, etc. My thoughts on the whole thing are that walls are needed in and around population centers and where vehicular access for routine patrols is possible. In remote areas where vehicles can go there should be vehicle barriers that would not restrict the wildlife. In the remote mountainous areas it would be the standard barbwire fence with remote sensors, drone surveillance and horseback patrols.

The bigger part of the equation is removing the draw for people to come here illegally. NO amnesty. No government benefits. If you are stopped by police for any infraction at all (speeding, jaywalking, etc.) and cannot prove you are here legally then you get detained and investigated by ICE. No home or vehicle loans unless you are here legally. Show up at the hospital and get your emergency care, but verify legal status. E-verify for employment and fine employers who do not do this. If they cannot get jobs, houses, government assistance or free medical care then they will not come. The drug runners are going to be trying to come over no matter what and that is what the border patrol is for, not babysitting families and kids that are coming over as "refugees" from Central America.

NMPaul · Mar 2, 2017

>Half the time I agree with
>NMWF and the other half
>I think they are a
>bunch of communist, liberal, tree
>huggers. I do not
>think this letter was well
>written or thought out, but
>I do agree with part
>of it. Ecologically a
>physical wall on the border
>is not a great thing.
>
>
>Honestly, a physical wall along the
>entire border is not really
>a realistic goal. In
>remote areas where there is
>nobody to watch the wall
>they will just dig under,
>climb over or cut through
>the thing. An actual
>physical wall would inhibit the
>movement of deer, javelina, mountain
>lions, jaguars, etc. My
>thoughts on the whole thing
>are that walls are needed
>in and around population centers
>and where vehicular access for
>routine patrols is possible.
>In remote areas where vehicles
>can go there should be
>vehicle barriers that would not
>restrict the wildlife. In
>the remote mountainous areas it
>would be the standard barbwire
>fence with remote sensors, drone
>surveillance and horseback patrols.
>
>The bigger part of the equation
>is removing the draw for
>people to come here illegally.
>NO amnesty. No government
>benefits. If you are
>stopped by police for any
>infraction at all (speeding, jaywalking,
>etc.) and cannot prove you
>are here legally then you
>get detained and investigated by
>ICE. No home or
>vehicle loans unless you are
>here legally. Show up
>at the hospital and get
>your emergency care, but verify
>legal status. E-verify for
>employment and fine employers who
>do not do this.
>If they cannot get jobs,
>houses, government assistance or free
>medical care then they will
>not come. The drug
>runners are going to be
>trying to come over no
>matter what and that is
>what the border patrol is
>for, not babysitting families and
>kids that are coming over
>as "refugees" from Central America.
>

I agree with removing the reason for people to come here illegally, but, that is not enough. We should have secured our borders 50 years ago, but, we have been kicking the can down the road all this time.
Building a wall is not the whole package. Securing the border includes building a wall where it makes sense and taking other measures in others. It is foolish to say we cannot secure our borders. It definitely can be done.

We now have a ton of resources invested in border patrol and we have check stations 60 miles from the border. That makes no sense. They have to be stopped at he border.

NMWF has no business getting involved in politics that have nothing to do with wildlife. I think there is much more of an argument that by stopping illegal immigration it will help wildlife along our border than helping it.

mcloakey · Mar 3, 2017

+1 Paul, NMWF does good and bad.
Mike

NMhunter4life · Mar 3, 2017

Agreed NMPaul

I am just saying that I don't think it makes sense to have a wall everywhere.

BUGLEnmIN · Mar 3, 2017

They do alot of shady crap!! Let's just mention the 150 director tags?!!!

Where are those going ???

EVILNR · Mar 3, 2017

>I'm not surprised

Why is anybody surprised? NM is a big time blue state.

tomvern85 · Mar 4, 2017

stoney · Mar 6, 2017

The NMWF is the biggest bunch of losers ever on the NM hunting scene. They are not the hunters friend by a long shot. Take their pro wolf stance. They do no good other than to propagandize and getting the NM hunter hooked when they are just using the general NM hunting public to gain membership numbers to promote their radical agenda.

Their leadership is personally involved with the Center For Biological Diversity which are the rural citizens of the west's worst enemy. The NMWF director is in bed with Kieran Suckling of the Center. How bad can they get before the NM sportsman will wake up?

These people are poison to our society. NMPaul, they do no good, or if they do have any habitat projects it is for ulterior reasons. That's the way I feel.

NMPaul · Mar 6, 2017

>The NMWF is the biggest bunch
>of losers ever on the
>NM hunting scene. They are
>not the hunters friend by
>a long shot. Take their
>pro wolf stance. They do
>no good other than to
>propagandize and getting the NM
>hunter hooked when they are
>just using the general NM
>hunting public to gain membership
>numbers to promote their radical
>agenda.
>
>Their leadership is personally involved with
>the Center For Biological Diversity
>which are the rural citizens
>of the west's worst enemy.
>The NMWF director is in
>bed with Kieran Suckling of
>the Center. How bad can
>they get before the NM
>sportsman will wake up?
>
>These people are poison to our
>society. NMPaul, they do no
>good, or if they do
>have any habitat projects it
>is for ulterior reasons. That's
>the way I feel.

Stoney, in all fairness, they have been the only organization to address locked gates on public land, and access to public land.
No other organization has done that. Every other is to chicken shyt and PC to do that. Give them their due for that.

I disagree with them strongly on getting involved with leftist politics that have nothing to do with wildlife, and their refusal to come out against wolfs.

stoney · Mar 6, 2017

The RMEF just acquired access through the private land of the Luera Ranch to make it a whole lot easier to hunt Luera Mountain in 16E.

I disagree with you, in that the NMWF has a hidden agenda to promote their liberal leftist views all the while wowing over the unwitting hunting public. These folks are anti private property, against all resource production and hate public land grazers. They are anti American unless you are a socialist, communist type person.

They are a constant thorn in the side of the NMDGF and the Game & Fish Commission. The Dept. won't even open the rule on the E-Plus system because of the threats from the NMWF to try and do away with the program.

I used to try and get along with them but they have completely sold out the hunters of NM. The Commission won't even hardly acknowledge them anymore, because of their radical views. Their recent promotion of the Mexican Gray Wolf program should be enough to really question their motives. Just look at the National Wildlife Federation, the mother organization of the NMWF to get a clue into how green and leftist this group really is.

NMPaul · Mar 6, 2017

Considering my initial post is disgust with them, I am not defending all their actions.

Name one other hunting organization that deals with landowners locking out the public from public land. You cant, because there is none.

This is a real problem. I can name dozens of private land signs on public land and locked gates that access public.

No other group addresses that.

stoney · Mar 6, 2017

We have just learned today that the NMWF has initiated a House Memorial 94 and this memorial would force the state game commission to open the E-plus rule and re-distribute landowner elk permits. The memorial is anti-landowner, anti-private property rights, and above all anti nonresident hunter opportunity.

As you well know, non-resident hunters and anglers are vital to the NMDGF and the outfitting industry and the economy of the rural areas and the State of New Mexico.

The elk foundation and other sportsmen organizations work daily on access problems with landowners. The NMWF may be in the fight but they would really like to hunt "their wildlife" even on private lands, if the truth be known. You will never convince me or most of my friends that the NMWF is the good ole boys, Far from it!

You are evidently snowed under and or are hoodwinked in my estimation NMPaul.

NMPaul · Mar 6, 2017

>We have just learned today that
>the NMWF has initiated a
>House Memorial 94 and
>this memorial would force the
>state game commission to open
>the E-plus rule and re-distribute
>landowner elk permits. The memorial
>is anti-landowner, anti-private property rights,
>and above all anti nonresident
>hunter opportunity.
>
>As you well know, non-resident hunters
>and anglers are vital to
>the NMDGF and the outfitting
>industry and the economy of
>the rural areas and the
>State of New Mexico.
>
>The elk foundation and other sportsmen
>organizations work daily on access
>problems with landowners. The NMWF
>may be in the fight
>but they would really like
>to hunt "their wildlife" even
>on private lands, if the
>truth be known. You will
>never convince me or most
>of my friends that the
>NMWF is the good ole
>boys, Far from it!
>
>You are evidently snowed under and
>or are hoodwinked in my
>estimation NMPaul.

Stoney, save your righteous indignation. Here is one of the main problems that hunting faces in the modern urban culture we live in. We are losing young hunters to video games, family that gave up hunting, and big city life.

We are not making sure that we have public land hunting in the future, a huntable population in the future and kids having a place to hunt regardless of what they can afford.

I am in a position that I could hunt private or go on guided hunts the rest of my life if I wanted to. Not everyone is. That and the last guided hunt I was on was over 15 years ago, and I finally realized I did not enjoy them as much as DIY hunts for many reasons.

Stoney, you are worried about one thing. Outfitters. That is your livelihood I assume and I get it. That is fine.

Most times the the public land hunter and the outfitters are on the same side of issues, in fact we desperately need each other in a battle where we need as many allies as possible.

If we lose the next generation as we are on pace to, it will only hurt the outfitting business in the future.

I have a good grasp on the situation and am definitely not hoodwinked. My only dog in the fight is the future of hunting. I will not be lectured on this by a guy whose main concern about hunting is how it feathers his nest.

I called out NMWF on their recent BS policies. That being said they are the only one fighting for the public land hunter in locked gate situations and closed public land access.
Outfitters assosciation is not going to carry that flag their job is to protect their members and they are doing a pretty good job of that. I understand that, but, save your condescending crap for someone else. And if you are not willing to fight for the public land hunter do not disparage someone that is. You do not represent the average public land hunter in this state.

stoney · Mar 6, 2017

NMPaul,

I am a lifelong hunter and a very avid one at that. I fully support public lands hunting and that is where I do all of my hunting. Why to you think I chose my profession. I love to hunt and I work hard to protect hunters rights. For you disparage me you don't even have a clue who I am or what I represent.

Your lecture to me that I am in the tank totally with the outfitters is absolutely off base and I'm here to tell you that I fight harder than anyone to keep our public lands hunting and fishing public. You can hate outfitters all you want but keep your remarks in line with reality.

Get off your high horse, holier than thou, self righteous attitude and help us protect the great opportunity New Mexicans have on our public as well as private lands here in New Mexico.

You continue to rail on the fable that the NMWF are the only ones fighting private landowner access issues is very shallow and short sighted. Many of us are in this battle every day and are trying to correct the wrongs. You can continue to defend this group but I am here to set the story straight on what this group is really about. They may do some good things but as I have said in the previous posts their main goal is a very radical green push.

hank4elk · Mar 7, 2017

Wow time out guys! Remember,divide& conquer .

I do know I should be last one to say we need to be a bit more inclusive if we are going to fight the sale or transfer of OUR National Heritage of Public Lands.
You 2 are a couple of the reasons I am even on this site still.
Don't have much tolerance myself anymore.
As much as I dislike some of NMWF's positions,I have to agree with both of you. And I'll continue to try and engage even a bunny hugger if they are pro public lands and will help in this fight.
That said NMWF is real good at the divide part these days.They are backing the stop all LO tags crap that hit the fan again yesterday.
Work with the ranchers and fix the system or loose access to a third of NM.

Ready for round 3 guys?

NMPaul · Mar 7, 2017

Well it is obvious you are just in it for the argument by your latest post. Just remember Stoney, you are the one that came at me.

This post was about me calling out NMWF for when it is not representing NM's hunting and fishing public and chose to push their leftist ideology. I am well aware of their faults.

In fact, you just repeated what I just said in regards to NMWF and yet you say I was hoodwinked.

When it comes to you disparaging a group that has in the past supported public land hunters, you have absolutely zero credibility. You do not represent non guided public land hunters.

The fact you make your living off of having people pay you to take them hunting on public lands puts you in a different category. Your priorities are not the same as the guy that has kids and cannot afford or does not want to pay someone to take him hunting and is being locked out of public lands that they should have access to.

That is a fact, and all your grandstanding and woe is me attitude is not going to change that.

I have ran several different types of businesses and in every one of them I had government regulations and issues I had to fight. Try running automotive repair businesses in Kalifornia and dealing with EPA, OSHA, and all the other crazy elements of Bureaucratic socialist government. You have no idea what real adversity is. Save your acting like a victim and just worry about taking care of your business.

I completely support you in fighting for your business. I have been doing it for decades. Just dont try to play both sides of the deck. As I have said many times before, outfitters, ranchers, public land hunters, mountain bikers, hikers etc all are allies. They have a bigger enemies than each other. And posts like yours just show that you are only about yourself and what you can make off of public lands.

You think that the Outfitters represent non paying public land hunters? Give me a break. When have they fought with landowners over closed access to non paying public land hunters.

You are in it for a livelihood. I have no problem with that. If that was my livelihood, I would also support and do things that would keep my business above water.

The fact that you make your living off of hunting changes your perspective of it as it should.
Our main point of contention is you saying I am hoodwinked by NMWF. I am not hoodwinked, I know their faults, and I know what they do right. Unfortunately, you only look at what supports your business in the short term.

One last question. Will you vote for Aubrey Dunn if he runs for Land Commissioner again?

NMPaul · Mar 7, 2017

>Wow time out guys! Remember,divide& conquer
>.
>
>I do know I should be
>last one to say we
>need to be a bit
>more inclusive if we are
>going to fight the sale
>or transfer of OUR National
>Heritage of Public Lands.
>You 2 are a couple of
>the reasons I am even
>on this site still.
>Don't have much tolerance myself anymore.
>
>As much as I dislike some
>of NMWF's positions,I have to
>agree with both of you.
>And I'll continue to try
>and engage even a bunny
>hugger if they are pro
>public lands and will help
>in this fight.
>That said NMWF is real good
>at the divide part these
>days.They are backing the stop
>all LO tags crap that
>hit the fan again yesterday.
>
>Work with the ranchers and fix
>the system or loose access
>to a third of NM.
>
>
>Ready for round 3 guys?

Hank, the funny thing is that Stoney and I would probably agree on 95% of the issues that hunting faces today. Maybe even 97%

.

When this is all over, I wont hold anything against him. One of my best friends is an outfitter, so we have had these discussions before. It is much easier to have this argument in person rather than typing it.
I am glad that the outfitters in NM have such a strong lobbying voice in NM. They have shut down some disastrous legislation over the years.

However, in a swing state like NM where we have Democrats that hunt, we will have a group like NMWF that can be a very very important advocate for hunting. This attitude that they are BAD because they do something that does not represent your business is wrong.

Call them out for the issues that you dont agree with. This Wall BS, Wolf reintroduction etc. , but, recognize that they do support the non paying public land hunter regardless if they pay to hunt public land or not.

No worries Hank, nothing like a lively discussion, I assume we are both big boys and can take it.

hank4elk · Mar 7, 2017

All good here Paul.
I just got back from signing up for my SS & I will continue to hunt NM public lands til my last breath. Maybe with a little chunk of heaven thrown in.
I just have to watch it and not go off on someone when I see the gears in their heads turn & try and understand simple logic. lol

NMBOWHNTR27 · Mar 7, 2017

Like I said before call praise them for the good things like fighting for public lands and call them out when they do bad things like supporting this HB 94 bill. I would vote against ithis bill. I am a public land hunter and I have guided for outfitters in the past. Part of the reason IMO is maybe some outfitters that lease the tags from land owners or the land owners themselves don't use all the tags is for QUALITY. I wouldn't want more elk tags in the public draw and have more competition on public land. It would take away the quality of hunt. IMO game and fish in a few units need to take away tags. For better age class and quality of hunt. As much as I would love for all tags to go to residents in the public draw I know how important nonresidents are to NM and our outfitters who make a living outfitting and guiding. This bill is a horrible idea.

stoney · Mar 9, 2017

NMPaul,

I just want to set the record straight. I am an avid hunter myself. I help my kids and more importantly my grand kids and many friends hunt. My livelihood is not an issue here. I am a died in the wool public lands hunter and I am not in the business to make money or get rich. I am in the business for the lifestyle and maintain an expensive set of horses and mules to hunt the wilderness areas of NM and AZ. I do however try to promote nonresident hunters as they actually should have a decent chance to hunt the public lands they help support with not only their tax dollars but their hunting expenditures.

I have tried for 40 years to work with the NMWF and they have never been much help in the hunting, fishing and outdoor recreation only if it benefited their membership numbers to further hoodwink unsuspecting souls in NM and all of the other states they and their green mother organization the National Wildlife Federation perpetuate in their zealous mission to collectivize and erode private property rights and all resource production on the public land and on and on.

Perhaps the biggest rail the NMWF rants about is the state taking over the public land. It is a dead issue in NM and I told you guys time and again the Feds will never in a million years relinquish the Federal Lands back to the states. Utah is still fussing over it but going nowhere either. They rev up the hunting public over nothing but they sure enjoy getting these hunters and fisher persons enrolled into their membership rolls. They have almost unlimited money to further their green mission, and they darn sure use it to promote their socialist agenda.

NMPaul · Mar 9, 2017

Stoney, nothing really new with your last post.

We have covered all of that already.

Name me one "hunting" organization that does not pander to their target market to increase membership??
So I do not see that as a strike against NMWF.

Name me one "hunting" organization that fights locked public lands as I mentioned above.

Lastly, will you be voting for Aubrey Dunn should he decide to try to be reelected?

NMBOWHNTR27 · Mar 9, 2017

>Stoney, nothing really new with your
>last post.
>
>We have covered all of that
>already.
>
>Name me one "hunting" organization that
>does not pander to their
>target market to increase membership??
>
>So I do not see that
>as a strike against NMWF.
>
>
>Name me one "hunting" organization that
>fights locked public lands as
>I mentioned above.
>
>Lastly, will you be voting for
>Aubrey Dunn should he decide
>to try to be reelected?
>
Not to join in, but I will make one comment. I would nevever ever vote for Aubrey Dunn! Dude is a liar!

NMPaul · Mar 9, 2017

>>
>Not to join in, but I
>will make one comment.
>I would nevever ever vote
>for Aubrey Dunn! Dude is
>a liar!

I voted for him having no idea that he would threaten NMGF to stop hunting on State land and then extorting money out of them with out giving them a long term deal.
I have said before, I will vote for whatever POS hippie Communist that runs against him. In the past I have almost always voted Republican ticket blindly. Will definitely not be voting for Aubrey.
Fairly good chance I will vote for Heinrich, depending on who runs against him.

stoney · Mar 9, 2017

Dunn probably not. Heinrich, never in a million years. Liberal Earth Firster. Paul, RMEF does more for access than NMWF ever thought of. The NMWF make's a lot of noise but we never see any results. Name a few success stories.

NMPaul · Mar 9, 2017

Cant think of anything that RMEF has done in my neck of the woods.
Also, I am talking about private land owners locking access on public land and putting private signs on public land.
That is not what RMEF does.
We are not covering any new ground. Dunn has already proven his disdain for public land hunters and that he is owned by big money. No public land hunter should ever vote for him.