CALLING YOU OUT NMPAUL & MM!!

O

Oryxrus

Active Member
Messages
163
NMPaul & MM,

As you all know the NM Exotic Rule has been opened and new proposals have been posted. My comments and views do not speak directly for WSMR, but are my personal and professional perspectives. For those who don't know me I have been associated with the WSMR Hunt program for the last 15 years.

Sportsmen and women of NM have an opportunity to help determine some important aspects on the structure of oryx hunting on WSMR, so I am asking all of you to make your views heard regardless of your stance.

Earlier this month WMSR presented the department and commission a second proposal that the department does not support, but through continued dialogue they are giving the public an opportunity to discuss these proposals. There will be a town meeting in Las Cruces in the near future and hopefully a survey sent out via email to all Oryx applicants requesting your feedback. THIS IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY!!

First off Oryx numbers have been increasing steadily the last several years. The population, just in the core areas alone, is already at 2009 levels which is about 3000-3500 animals. At that time they had just over a thousand licenses. The population is projected to increase based on aerial surveys. In addition, calf numbers have been increasing 5%-6% each year the last two years. This has been compounded by the fact the harvest sex ratio for adult oryx has tilted towards bulls, 60/40, which means less cows are being harvested the last several years. This a great indicator that we can anticipate strong growth. At the current rate of growth the population could cause significant issues for the Missile range if not kept in check.

WSMR?s objective is to maintain the herd at about 2,500 to 3,000 animals. Based on decades of attempting to manage these animals they feel this number provides quality hunter opportunity while still maintaining the mission of WSMR.

What the proposals have in common:
- [ ] Make veteran hunts open to all NM vets.
- [ ] Remove the Rhodes and Stallion hunt area designation. This allows managers the flexibility to move hunt areas for management purposes. The proclamation will have designated hunt areas so hunters will know where they will be hunting prior to applying.
- [ ] Youth and mobility impaired hunts will go unchanged.

Here are the proposals differences:
Proposal 1 recap
- [ ] Add an additional 4 OIL Hunts on top of the current hunts being conducted. This would be a total of 10 hunts.
- [ ] The other nine hunts would have 65 OIL, 15 Broken Horn and 5 veteran licenses for a total of 85 licenses each hunt. ( Youth & MI Hunt is unchanged)

PROS: Increased OIL licenses, broken horn and vet hunts. Provides more OIL opportunity.
CONS: Hunt quality will be degraded due to increased licenses as a result of hunt pressure. This also will have an affect on trophy hunting on a 2 1/2 day hunt.

Proposal 2 recap-
- [ ] Maintain current hunts, increase OIL licenses to 60 plus 5 OIL Veteran hunts compared to this years allocation.
- [ ] Add an additional 4 hunts at the end of the year that are not Once in a life time and are OPEN to everyone. Each of those hunts would be approximately 100 licenses each.
- [ ] Removal of broken horn hunts.

The current 5 OIL hunts would only have 60-65 license each hunt and occur prior to the new 4 hunts. The new 4 hunts would have approximately 100 license each that anyone can apply for. These would not be a once in a life time hunt.

PROS: Creating a true Once in a life time experience with 5 designated OIL hunts with less hunt pressure to increase the quality of the hunt and more opportunities for trophy hunting. The last four years we have had 50-65 hunters a hunt and it provides an excellent experience for hunters. To me this is a OIL experiment. Once we start going above that i can see a big difference in hunt quality and experience. For those that have witnessed the ?Oryx 500? back in the day can relate.
These additional OPEN hunts would create increased hunt pressure to areas that need to be managed without the concern for success rate. These hunts would be sacrificing hunt quality for more opportunity since it is not a OIL hunt. Any one can apply for these hunts every year.

Broken horn hunts will be removed. Currently 12%-15% of OIL hunters already harvest broken horn oryx. This would reduce the need for specialized hunts targeting broken horns.

CONS: OIL opportunity maybe be decreased compared to proposal 1 overall.
Some hunters may feel removing broken horn hunts is not good. Some feel these hunts are important to manage quality, but the reality is OIL and OPEN hunters will manage this animals based on past harvest information.

The bottom line is both proposals satisfy the department and WSMR?s management goals. The only question left to answer is what does NM want from their Oryx hunts.

Simply do you want to maximize OIL opportunities at the expense of reducing hunt quality OR do you want to moderately increase OIL opportunity (compared to current opportunity not proposal 1) while maintaining a high quality hunt and experience, plus hunts that are open to all hunters that will sacrifice hunt quality for opportunity.

With that being said, I would like to thank WSMR, the Director, commissioners and the department for allowing different views and perspectives to be presented for public discussion.

Plus, you still have Barbary and Ibex changes that need your input. Make sure you attend town meetings, email the department and talk to your commissioner.

You decide!!! If you don't make your views heard the commission and department will make it for you.

One question that may arise, why can't we add more hunts to manage the same number of hunters and increase hunt quality? Range availability is a huge factor that drives these hunts. WSMR had nearly 5,500 missions last year and its increasing every year. WSMR almost cancelled two hunts this year alone just days before the hunt took place. Man power is another issue, along with logistics and safety. WSMR would like to manage the population by having 5-6 hunts a year like they currently do and not 11-13 hunts a year.


I hope to see you all in Las Cruces and hear your feedback.

Thank you
Gilbert Villegas
 
I'm all about a true OIL hunt that produces quality. I have been trying to draw that OIL hunt for about 18-20 years and when I do draw it I would like the opportunity to harvest a quality animal. Not fare to me or the other thousands of hunters still trying to draw their OIL hunt to open up other hunts that they can draw before I draw my OIL hunt.

With it being a OIL hunt I can hope that every hunter will draw their OIL hunt and the only person left to draw the Hunt will be me. Wishful thinking I guess. I would have the whole range to myself.

Keep it quality!!! With the chance at harvesting a trophy.

My opinion.

LCHC
 
thank you for your feedback, i have the same perspective. I haven't drawn my OIL either but when I do I want a quality hunt.
 
Does anyone know why the Small Missle Range no longer offer hunts? I had my OIL hunt on that site, after that year it was no longer offered.
 
I like the idea of changing the Iraq/Afghan hunt to all veterans or veterans of some war.
We have people deploying all the time to other areas of conflict, but Im not positive that they can apply because it's not Iraq or Afghan. I might be wrong with that, but I think it would be a good change.
 
I agree with LCHC. Let's keep the quality of the animals up, increase youth opportunities to increase license numbers. As of right now there is only one trophy youth hunt that I'm aware of. That would be a good place to start.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-22-18 AT 08:31PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Apr-22-18 AT 08:30?PM (MST)

Yes sir, Small Missile Range is currently a population reduction hunt area. The population wouldn't sustain a OIL hunt. This area is between the San Andres Refuge and White Sands Monument which does not allow exotics. This area also borders Highway 70, so this area is heavily managed to avoid accidents. If there was a situation that population grew to a significant level then it could be possible that this area could be opened up. As of right now it simply doesn't have the numbers to sustain lots of hunters, success would be low.
 
>Yes sir, Small Missile Range is
>currently a population reduction hunt
>area. The population wouldn't sustain
>a OIL hunt. This area
>is between the San Andres
>Refuge and White Sands Monument
>which does not allow exotics.
>This area also boundars Highway
>70, so this area is
>heavy managed to avoid accidents.
>If there was a situation
>that population grew to a
>significant level then it could
>be possible that this area
>could be opened up. As
>of right now it simply
>doesn't have the numbers to
>sustain lots of hunters, success
>would be low.


I see, makes sense. Thank you for the feedback, very much appreciated.
 
I would much rather have a quality opportunity than five opportunities. Adding more sportsmen to a hunt is going to promote rushed shots and plenty of other bad decisions.
 
Jim,
As of right now the department doesn't have it online to provide comments directly, but soon there should be a survey going out if everything works out.

There will be a town meeting in Las Cruces that people can provide their feedback. I will post the date when I find out more, but we should get an email from the department.

On May 22 in Los Alamos the commission will meet to hear the departsments recommendations, so the public will
have an opportunity to speak then.

The best thing to do at this point is to spread word, provide your comments here so everyone has an opportunity to discuss any concerns and then email, call or attend a meeting so we are informed.

If you have commissioner contacts I would do that as well.

NMDGF contacts
Phone: (505) 476-8000
Toll-free: (888) 248-6866
Email: [email protected] ( this is the general department email)
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-23-18 AT 02:57PM (MST)[p]I vote option 2, dump the BHO hunts, roughly keep the current OIL hunts, and add the quantity hunts that might improve your odds. Right now you can expect to draw once every ~33-50 years depending on which OIL hunt you choose (3-1.5% draw odds, respectively). If the numbers of game is increasing, we should make sure to increase the chance to hunt them.

I know this is MONSTER Muleys and quality takes precedence over meat on this site, but some of us have different perspectives.

Eph
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-23-18 AT 01:55PM (MST)[p]To me, a hybrid of the 2 options would be best. Not sure if it would be possible from a IT perspective though. I've had my OIL hunt, but I know people that have been putting in for 30 years and still haven't drawn. I don't think they would be too happy if tags were given to people that have already had a OIL on the range. What about this:

--Have true OIL hunts first (consistent with lower tag numbers and good experience to be picky)

--Have the additional tags next, but give preference to OIL hunters --Big disclaimer given that if you apply for this, it will be your OIL hunt.
--Anyone can apply for this hunt, but first round of draw will only go for those who apply that haven't gotten their OIL. If after that round there is still tags left, then second round will be open for everyone
 
>I vote option 2, dump the
>BHO hunts, roughly keep the
>current OIL hunts, and add
>the quantity hunts that might
>improve your odds. Right now
>you can expect to draw
>once every ~33-50 years depending
>on which OIL hunt you
>choose (3-1% draw odds, respectively).
>If the numbers of game
>is increasing, we should make
>sure to increase the chance
>to hunt them.
>
>I know this is MONSTER Muleys
>and quality takes precedence over
>meat on this site, but
>some of us have different
>perspectives.
>
>Eph

Hey no matter how u look at we are all ?trophy hunters? of some sort!. Oryx meat is the best!!
 
Oryxrus

I would rather keep the quality. I have more than 20 years applying for my OIL and would hate to draw it after they make a major change that would make my hunt less of a quality hunt for a quality Animal.

That being said can we add a OIL hunt to what we have and maybe add 5 to 10 tags per hunt, also adding 2 hunts at the end of the year for BHO max out the available tags for each so we can still remove the number of oryx that need to be removed.

Another suggestion is that we come up with a OIL quota and a Harvest goal. number each applicant 1 to 1 million and set up seven hunt dates. With the last 2 dates being optional. hunt #1 call the first 70 hunters for the 1st hunt and go on down the line. once you hit the harvest goal you suspend all OIL hunts.

Kind of a dep style system but it may open the door each year to a few extra hunters to have an opportunity to hunt their OIL Oryx. just an Idear.
 
Good feedback 5yearcoueshunter,

We are on the same page about providing quality OIL hunts, but there would be some IT and administrative issues with the second part of your recommendation.
 
Damn straight. I was talking to a coworker this morning and she said she wouldn't eat any of her kids' oryx. I said I would, instantly!

I finally finished off my 2016 cow's meat and miss it.
 
Another good recommendation,
I hear you quality first, couldn't agree more. We have to balance quality with management goals and right now they are behind the game. Oryx are prolific breeders that can withstand the driest of conditions, plus they have no natural predators once they get to adulthood.

There are some limitations to your structure. They can't have all quality OIL hunts with low numbers even if they increased each hunt by 10 and still attempted to control the population. This would require more hunts to accomplish that. So there has to be a balance. We also can't have 150-200 hunters on one hunt either, so the last two or three broken horn hunts wouldn't be enough hunters to help reduce the population. In addition broken horn success rates wouldn't be as high if hunters could harvest any one oryx.

The dep style structure for OIL hunts would work if WSMR didn't have time and administrative constraints to do background checks and all their paper work for that many hunters at short notice. Plus the time to get carcass tags from the department needs to be considered. The main reason I believe this part would not work is because we know they won't harvest enough oryx at their current growth rate so we should schedule the hunts a accordingly. I believe we won't see any affects till year 3 or maybe even 4 regardless of which proposal the public selects.

I hope that helped clarify. Thank you for your feedback.
 
My family has been lucky enough to be on many oryx hunts. Even so, I have yet to draw my OIL tag.
We are so lucky to have the opportunity to hunt these animals here in NM. They are one of my favorite hunts of any hunts anywhere.

Ifthere is a way to maintain a quality OIL hunt I would support that.

Offrange hunts are tough already, so adding hunts or additional hunters I doubt would make them much tougher. Maybe a small increase like 10% increase in off range tags would not change much.

All that being said, I have complete confidence in Gilbert and the work he does with WSMR. I sure hope they listen to you guys with whatever changes they make.

Let us know when the Las Cruces meeting will be. Will try to get some folks to attend, if I cant attend myself.
 
If I'm not busy working, I'll try to make it to the Las Cruces meeting.

I like the idea of maintaining quality hunts and keep anything but broken horn on range as OIL. There are enough people that haven't drawn OIL, there won't be a shortage of applicants.
 
NMPaul,

Thank you for taking the time to provide your feedback. The more people that voice their opinion on which proposal they prefer the better informed the department and the commission will be to make the right decision.

Say hello to Zack for me and thank you for spreading the word.

Hope to see you soon
 
iccyman001,

That is exactly why they recommended that, both proposals will remove the Iraq or Afghan requirement and make it open to all Vets starting in 2019. Which proposal do you prefer iccyman001?
 
BrianID,

I hope to see you there or at least find a way to express your views.

Quality seems to be the theme for the most part so far.
 
is there a way to pre qualify folks so that there wont be the late surge in background checks.

and I think that the tags issue would be fairly simple from the game dept.

they already have an over the counter set up, I think by the end on the last scheduled oil hunt it would be known if the next hunt is needed. hunters would already be checked notified that they had x amount of time to respond to eligible to be on the next hunt. food for thought. It might be a way to get a few more hunter their OIL hunt.

Gilbert
Thanks for taking the time to discuss this with the public. You?re much appreciated.
 
rockn9858,
Thank you for your feedback. I'll try to see how that could work. In your scenario right of the bat WSMR couldn't schedule a hunt of that magnitude on short notice. Plus physical security will not be happy they spent the manpower running background checks on people in advance that may or may not be on range. I am almost positive they wouldn't go for that.

I think it would be more productive to tweak the proposals, but I appreciate your ideas.

Thanks again
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-24-18 AT 02:37PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Apr-24-18 AT 02:35?PM (MST)

LAST EDITED ON Apr-24-18 AT 02:34?PM (MST)

Truth be told.. both proposals were presented to the department for consideration. Again, WSMR objectives will be met with either proposal. The question is how do you want these hunts structured. Here are the current numbers compared to the proposals.

Currently OIL/VET/BRK
Licenses 45/5/15

Licenses PER HUNT = 65
TOTAL OIL Opportunities (OIL/VET/MI) = 270
Total licenses = 390(Includes 50 YTH/MI Hunt)


Proposal 1 - OIL/VET/BRK
Licenses = 65/5/15

Licenses PER HUNT = 85
TOTAL OIL Opportunities (OIL/VET/MI)= 650
Total licenses = 815(Includes 50 YTH/MI Hunt)
* Add 4 hunts -Increase OIL, VET, BRK Opportunity
* Decrease hunt quality in 2 1/2 day hunt pending no mission conflicts

Proposal 2 - OIL/VET/ANY One Can Apply
Licenses =60 /5 / 100

Licenses PER HUNT OIL/VET = 65
Licenses PER OPEN Hunt = 100

TOTAL OIL Opportunities (OIL/VET/MI)= 340
Total licenses = 775 (Includes 50 YTH/MI Hunt)
* Increase OIL Opportunity, maintain current 5 OIL hunts for hunt quality
* Add 4 hunts to the end of the season - Open to everyone and remove broken horn hunts compromising hunt quality for opportunity.

Do you want to maximize OIL opportunities at the expense of reducing hunt quality OR do you want to moderately increase OIL opportunity (compared to current opportunity not proposal 1) while maintaining a high quality hunt and experience, plus hunts that are open to all hunters that will sacrifice hunt quality for opportunity.

Maybe the numbers will help put things in perspective.


Thanks
 
proposal #1 sounds like the better of the 2 but I think I would like to see the number of Vet tags go as well. 60/10/15 or 65/10/15 or 60/15/10 M2C
 
I vote to keep the quality of a OIL tag the same. QUALITY!! I was fortunate enough to draw the February Stallion range tag this year!! I cannot wait!!
 
muleymann99,

It would be nice to have 50-65 tags to keep that quality, but they have to find a balance to meet increasing Oryx numbers. In regards to your hunt, you will definitely have a opportunity to hunt the range like a true OIL hunt should be like. Thank you again for your feedback.
 
I like option 2. I managed to draw my OIL tag in 2003, and I hkbestly believe the main reason I did was the rules changes and application deadline change that year...a lot of people dropped the ball, which worked in my favor.

Maybe it's just selfish opportunity for me to hunt the WSMR again (although I'm certain odds will be tough), but I also like the idea of keeping the OIL hunts as high of quality as possible.
 
Gilbert,
What are the chances we can get the OIL removed from the Iraqi/Afgan War vet tag? I drew this tag a few years back and would appreciate the opportunity to draw an on-range not BHO hunt again.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
-JB
 
I guess I am confused on what you are calling quality. Are you calling the quality of animals "quality" or are you calling the over all experience "quality".

Animal quality seems like it would be equal with either of these as they both give about the same number of tags. Option 1 actually kills less quality animals since 15 of those tags are forced to kill a broken horn.

If you are talking experience quality, it is 70 people hunting ANY oryx for option 1 and 65 for option 2. Is 5 more people going to make that much of a difference.

I have already drawn my OIL tag and would love to hunt the range again, but that being said I think every person putting in for a OIL tag should be able to draw a tag on range before I get to go on there again. If it was an under prescribed hunt then yes open it up, but there are lots of people who try there chance at drawing a OIL tag and I think they should still have the opportunity to draw that tag before me and everyone else who has already hunted their OIL tag.
 
throwfar,

First off, thank you for your service! I don't think they would remove the OIL designation, they have agreed with WSMR recommendation to remove the Iraqi/Afgan designation to open the hunt up to all resident Veterans. The department stance right now is maximize OIL opportunity so that is highly unlikely.

As far as hunts to apply for, if proposal 2 is accepted you'll have 4 new hunts to chose from because those hunts will be open to everyone.

If proposal 1 is accepted then your options are BHO, off range and don't forget McGregor.

Hope that helps.
 
live4muleys,

50-65 tags per hunt in my opinion provides a quality hunting experience, a true once in a life time hunt. People are not following you down a two track trying to pass you or when your on a 1 mile stalk and truck drives by 50mph, jumps out and takes a shot. Due to lower licenses the quality of the hunt increase and you have the opportunity to be more selective and look for a trophy animal. So the answer to your question is no these hunts don't necessary increase quality of the trophy, but provides a quality hunting experience that I believe defines "Once In a Life Time". I apologize if that was not clear.

The comparison would be from what we have currently. Right now we have 65 total tags that include OIL -45/VET- 5/BRK- 15. The youth and MI hunt is by far best hunt we have with only 50 licenses. We would like all of them to be 50 license if we could.

Proposal 1 has a total of 85 licenses, an increase of 20 more licenses per hunt, OIL 65/Vet -5/BRK-15.

Proposal 2 has a hybrid of the two. It maintains 5 hunts at 65 license total, OIL-60/VET-5, which maintains the currently quality. No broken horn hunts. In addition it provides new 4 hunts with increased opportunity for everyone at 100 licenses a hunt.

So your question may be is 20 more licenses significant in proposal 1? It's just not 20 licenses its potentially 80 additional people with their guests to consider. Plus if your asking for my opinion it is. If Oryx were distributed evening across the landscape I would say it doesn't matter, but they are not. Historically each area has 4-6 specific locations where Oryx like to congregate. The first two days these areas will be hit hard and by Sunday your OIL hunt turns into the first one I see hunt. To me that is not a OIL hunt.

That being said, I totally understand maximizing OIL opportunity! I get it, but NM hunters should make that decision not the department or commission or WSMR.

Thank you for your feedback.. good stuff.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-25-18 AT 01:52PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Apr-25-18 AT 01:46?PM (MST)

MEETINGS HAVE BEEN SET!

Las Cruces: 6 to 7 p.m. May 7 at the Department of Game and Fish office, 2715 Northrise Drive.

Roswell: 6 to 7 p.m. May 8 at the Department of Game and Fish office, 1912 W. Second Street.

Albuquerque: 6 to 7 p.m. May 9 at the Department of Game and Fish office, 3841 Midway Place, NE.

If you can't make the meeting please email your position to the department.

[email protected]
(Make sure to enter the complete email. If you click the email link it doesn't send correctly)

http://www.wildlife.state.nm.us/event/public-meeting-proposed-changes-barbar
y-sheep-oryx-persian-ibex-rule/?instance_id=6746
 
Thanks for the response. I don't mind option number 2 to keep the number of hunters down, but I still think the later hunts should still be left as OIL. I think there would still be enough people putting in for those hunts to still fill the 100 tags you want filled and be willing to use their OIL hunt then in order to be able to have better odds of drawing out. If you try this and not enough people apply for the last four hunts (which I don't see happening) then open them up the next year to all. I feel there are enough people that would still be will to have increased odds to use these last four hunts as their OIL. I don't feel I should be able to go again when I know a lot of people who have been applying a long time and have not drawn out. When I drew it I knew it was OIL and that's what it should stay until others have had their chance.
 
I understand and you make great points. This is why the public needs to provide their input. I wish the survey would have been objective and more information so you could respond accordingly, I will speak to the survey in a bit.

Thank you for your feedback it's greatly appreciated.
 
I received the survey in my email today, as a non-resident. I support fully what NMPaul wrote. Gilbert and the WSMR staff know what is best for managing oryx on the range. My son and I had a great experience there on the Stallion range in February. It took me 12 years to draw the OIL tag and my son applied this year for the youth hunt as his first choice and OIL for the other choices, but he didn't draw. I hope that he can draw a tag in the future, as it is really a special experience. I appreciated the opportunity to participate in the survey, but I fully support Gilbert and his staff on what they believe to be the best for future hunts.
 
Any one read their ORYX Survey from the department?

I don't know how many of you read all the information I have supplied here, but if you have and you took the survey you would have seen there is a HUGE lack of information between the survey and what I have provided. Those 2 questions will drive which proposal the department will select.

Question #2... I would answer that NO.. 10 out of 10 times if I didn't know what was going on.

In fact, I am very disappointed in the department survey design. It was not objective and does NOT provide the public enough information to determine which proposal the public wants. Of course WSMR was not provided an opportunity to review the question before hand.

As a hunter I apologize for the wasted time this took because based on that survey the department doesn't appear to care what you want and they will ask the questions that gets the answer they want.

To be clear WSMR wants what the public wants! Email the department and go to a meeting because the survey is a waste in my opinion.
 
Gilbert, I was confused by their survey. It seems the 2 main questions were asking the same questions 2 different ways.

I have forwarded the data you gave me to friends in Cruces to get them to attend. I will do my best to go out also. It is a 2.5 hour drive each way for me though.

At the end of the day, I just want the range, NMDFG, and any other influential political bodies to acknowledge the value of the Oryx population in NM, and the benefits it has. My biggest fear is their extermination. They are an amazing resource that I hope we have for generations. Such a great animal to hunt for so many reasons, that lives and prospers in some of the harshest conditions.
 
I was also confused. The survey needed more in-depth questions. I was expecting so much more.

Paul, your feedback via email to the department will be just as good. Thank your for getting the public involved.

You can set your fears aside, WSMR, and the department have no intention now or in the future to exterminate Oryx. That will never happen. They maybe an exotic species but they are as much part of NM as any another species.

As indicated before WSMR?s believes a population between 2,500-3,000 Oryx seems to be a perfect balance for quality oryx hunting and reduced mission oryx conflicts on range.

When WSMR had 5,000 to 6,000 animals the range was averaging 40-45 car accidents a year, not to mention when they get into test sites. If you can imagine Raytheon or Lockheed testing a billion dollar Missile project and the guy who is responsible to launch it hits an Oryx on his way to the test sight. NOT Good business for WSMR. It's not only a mission issue it can be a safety issue for employees traveling on range. In those days RR 7 was called the gauntlet, very dangerous to travel after dark.

WAMR has reduced those accidents to 5-7 year and dramatically reduced mission conflicts due to Oryx, but managers know based on the current growth we can shortly see those days again.

I can assure you the department and WSMR monitor the population yearly and the department has the authority to decrease tags or hunts if there is ever a situation that requires them to do so.

Thank you again
 
I say this in jest but I wish it could actually happen. Let's trap and relocate 3-400 oryx each year to SE New Mexico and expand our hunting opportunities . Why can't we encourage these amazing critters in areas other than WSMR ?
 
I hope I am wrong but I'm thinking they want the problem solved quickly and if you resist we could loose out altogether, the military comes first over the oryx .
 
Servehim,

Your not the only one with this idea. Unfortunately it would take a act of Congress in this day and age to get something like that done for an exotic spieces. When consider blm, forest service, US Fish and Wildlife service and other agencies it would be impossible in my opinion.

Thank you for your feedback... please share this and your opinion on both proposals with department.
 
264mag,

We will never lose Oryx hunting on WSMR. The situations below would be the only reasons why hunting on WSMR would stop temporarily or permanently.

- Act of War near or on the mainland.
- Terrorist attack on the mainland.
- A deadly hunter accident.

WSMR prides themselves on safety. I know hunters hate the safety briefings before each hunt but it only takes on person to have a fatal accident and hunting on WSMR would definitely be in jeopardy.

No worries my friend the Department and WSMR will work hard to make sure this opportunity is here for generations to come.
 
What I don't get is that the dept has sold more tag on all exotic hunt but shows no significant increase in harvest. so 1 of 3 things happening here. 1 to many hunters in the field making it difficult to harvest animals. 2 not enough animals to justify the sale of that amount of tags 3 to many hunters in the field in a given season forcing the animals to seek cover on Private land where the general public can not go.
Example: Barbary IMO should be like Oryx 1 month long season in each unit x amount of tags. create low pressure at all times. the animals will get use to the pressure and move around as if it was a normal act year around.
But you add 1000 hunters on opening morning feb 1 and they gone.
again M2C
 
>264mag,
>
>We will never lose Oryx hunting
>on WSMR. The situations below
>would be the only reasons
>why hunting on WSMR would
>stop temporarily or permanently.
>
>- Act of War near or
>on the mainland.
>- Terrorist attack on the mainland.
>
>- A deadly hunter accident.
>
>WSMR prides themselves on safety. I
>know hunters hate the safety
>briefings before each hunt but
>it only takes on person
>to have a fatal accident
>and hunting on WSMR would
>definitely be in jeopardy.
>
>No worries my friend the Department
>and WSMR will work hard
>to make sure this opportunity
>is here for generations to
>come.
Thanks that's good to know, I didn't mind that safety meeting before the hunt , it's a good thing ! Nothing worse than a hunting fatality .
 
>Servehim,
>
>Your not the only one with
>this idea. Unfortunately it would
>take a act of Congress
>in this day and age
>to get something like that
>done for an exotic spieces.
>When consider blm, forest service,
>US Fish and Wildlife service
>and other agencies it would
>be impossible in my opinion.
>
>
>Thank you for your feedback... please
>share this and your opinion
>on both proposals with department.
>
Thanks Oryxrus, your a stand up guy to get on here and encourage hunters to be involved and answering our questions as best you can . Hats Off.. Don't want to put you on the spot but why don't the powers that be recognize the valuable commodity these prolific critters provide our state. They have proven in the last @50 years to co-exist quite nicely with deer/antelope/ elk. The additional source of revenue to NMGF could only benifit them , I must be missing something. Help inform me??
 
I have looked over both NM Department of Game and Fish's and WSMRs proposals very closely. I have tallied the permit numbers for each proposal by permit type. I greatly prefer NMDGF's proposal. I think WSMRs proposal is a very bad idea. I also think that WSMR contractors are out of line to be pushing their agenda about the nature of the hunt. One of the most important and successful aspects of wildlife manegement in the US is that wildlife is managed by the States, not the Feds. WSMR sole role in the Oryx hunt is to provide access to the property so the hunt can be conducted as decided by NMDGF and designed with the input of New Mexico hunters. Anyone that knows me knows that I have a couple of decades experience of being a thorn in the side of NMDGF and the State Game Commission. But when they get it right as in their Oryx proposal I am very supportive. There is a new group of managers at game and fish over the last several years and in my opinion they do a better job of formulating hunt rules with hunters in mind and with our input.

Ok, now onto what is proposed, the differences, and why NMDGFs proposal is far superior to WSMRs. There will be quite a few more on-range Oryx permits under both proposals and both proposals will have about the same number of permits. This is a function of population objectives which NMDGF and WSMR apparantly are in agreement.

The squabble comes down to a difference of opinion about what constitutes a once in a lifetime (OIL) oryx hunt. NMDGF believes that simply drawing a permit to hunt trophy Oryx (non-broken horned) in their core range (The missle range) is the characteristic that makes an Oryx hunt special enough that it should be OIL so as many hunters as possible can have the opportunity. There are over 7000 resident applicants alone for a few hundred on-range trophy OIL Oryx permits each year. In order to provide the trophy Oryx hunt experience to as many of these 7000 people as possible (not to mention many nonresident and outfitted applicants) NMDGF proposes to keep the the existing and place the new trophy Oryx permits in the OIL hunts. WSMR wants to put the bulk of the new trophy permits in hunts open to anyone. 400 of them. WSMR believes (quite astoundingly so) that reducing the number hunters on the range during OIL hunts from about 85 to about 65 will somehow create a hunt of such superior quality that it is worth the cost of not reserving 400 permits for people that have never drawn a trophy Oryx permit.

The on-range Oryx hunt is a strange hunt experience. It is busy. You don't have much time to hunt. You can't scout. You arrive with all the other hunters and get turned loose from the same place at the same time. It is highly controlled and their are many rules you must follow. You have WSMR personnel and contractors breathing down your neck. The number of hunters in the field is not going to positively or negatively change the quality of the hunt experience. It is what it is and it is special because you have an Oryx tag in your pocket and you can shoot a trophy Oryx if you see one. This is not like a bighorn sheep hunt where the peace and solitude qualities coud be greatly changed by even a nominal increase in the number of hunters in the field. The Oryx hunt is going to feel the same whether there are 65, or 85, or even well over 100 hunters in the field at the same time. WSMR is just flat wrong to think that the nature or quality of the hunt experience is going to change even nomally if they rob an additional 400 hunters that have never drawn a trophy Oryx permit of the opportunity to draw these permits. So far what I have said is my opinion. But there is data from past years that shows my opinions about the impact of hunter density on the quality the hunt experience to be correct. The harvest success rates and hunter satisfaction reports from past OIL hunts are high do not change significantly when the number of hunters ranges from the 40s to well over 100. NMDGF proposes having 85 hunters in field at any given time. Well below prior hunts with high harvest rates and high hunter satisfaction ratings.

I have already drawn my OIL oryx hunt and so have all my children. But I still prefer people that haven't to have nearly doubled odds of drawing a OIL trophy Oryx hunt even though it means I will never again draw a trophy Oryx hunt in their core range. The biggest question I have about WSMRs proposal is why do they so stridently want to transfer so many OIL hunt opportunities away from people that haven't drawn a OIL permit when they must know that the hunt experience will stay roughly the same without doing so? Something just doesn't add up. WSMR contractors need to cease pushing their ill conceived proposal. More importantly hunters that have or haven't had the OIL hunt need to go online and flood NMDGFs special email address for the exotics rule with formal comments opposing WSMRs proposal and expressing their preference for NMDGFs proposal. If 5% of the 7000 New Mexico residents that haven't drawn a OIL Oryx hunt would make comments it would make quite an impact in the chances that NMDGFs proposal will be adopted by the State Game Commission.
 
Just keep in mind there is a objective that must be maintained. If WSMR sees it is not being hit, and they have oryx interfering with their operations, they will take matters into their own hands as they have done before and every oryx they have to deal with is one more that hunters (trophy or meat) will not have.

Certainly there is a solution that will keep all involved happy.
 
>Just keep in mind there is
>a objective that must be
>maintained. If WSMR sees
>it is not being hit,
>and they have oryx interfering
>with their operations, they will
>take matters into their own
>hands as they have done
>before and every oryx they
>have to deal with is
>one more that hunters (trophy
>or meat) will not have.
>
>
>Certainly there is a solution that
>will keep all involved happy.
>
+1
 
Abqbw,

Thank you for taking the time to really break this down.

There is one thing I would like to make clear, that I thought I had previously made..
First, I am not speaking on behalf of WSMR or the department.

Second, WSMR is mandated by the federal government by the Sikes act to manage all wildlife on WSMR. YES, the department and the commission have the mandate to manage all wildlife in NM that belong to the residents of NM to include Oryx of course. They have the authority to make the final management decisions. However, WSMR has an obligation to assess, assist, collaborate and provide their recommendations as managers of the wildlife and the land. WSMR also has to ensure the mission of White Sands Missile Range is being met so there is balance since hunting is not a priority to the mission.. This is WSMR?s authority. I feel WSMR has done an unbelievable job to balance the needs of the mission and hunter access. No one will ever comprehend what WSMR manager?s do to fight for hunter access on a closed military installation. They fight on a consistent basis to keep land from being closed or used for UXO Sites.

Third, WSMR developed several proposals with the input of NMDGF personell out of the Las Cruces office. Together, they looked at the data and confirms numbers, discussed all changes that were proposed. Once they were constructed WSMR submitted them to the administration. There was a dialogue with the administration as well to come up with the proposal the department is recommending now. We did it together with NMDGF. The second proposal has turned into a WSMR PROPOSAL some how , this was created to provide the public with options, to get their input. To allow the commission and the department to provide the public with options.. This is the way management suppose to work, a partnership. It's worked that way for decades.

WSMR has never picked one proposal over the other. I want to make sure both proposals are fairly delivered to the public so they can make an informed decision. There is not one hunter or outfitter that has called me since this started that wanted my input that can say I told them to choose one proposal over the other. As I said many time each proposal meets The departments and WSMR biological management goals so it doesn't matter which one is public selects. That's whats so great about having discussions, new ways and perspectives can be created.

Lastly, I apologize if you feel I was not being objective and fair. You are the first of many with that perspective. All I can tell you is my agenda is to ensure the public has a voice and has the facts. In fact I encourage you to call me, my cell is 575-993-6066 if you feel a conversation is needed.

I appreciate your feedback, I really do and I ask you to proved that feedback to the department. Thank you.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-30-18 AT 12:20PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON July-4-1776 AT 12:08?PM (MST)

I wish I could find the actually proposals on line, but I tabulated the licenses/hunts per post #29.

Status quo ... 65 hunters x 5 hunts plus 50 YO/MI x 1 more hunt)(plus friends and oversight and mission...)(, . This is not enough hunting to meet management goals.

Proposal I ... 85 hunters x 9 hunts (plus 50 YO/MI x 1 more hunt), all hunts OIL.

Proposal II .. 65 hunters x 5 hunts plus 100 hunters x 4 hunts (plus 50 YO/MI x 1 more hunt), and the 100x4 hunts are not OIL.

The question then is do we want more hunters on an OIL hunt, or do we prefer to add a lot of hunters to a non-OIL hunt?

I agree that Prop I is written as if base access is deserving of "OIL" (as does the status quo), and that Prop II is written as if hunt quality is deserving of "OIL".

Ten minutes ago I thought it would be unfair to have non-OIL hunts on base, and actually wrote "I choose...". Then I lamented that the 100-tag hunts weren't OIL too, so that the draw odds could indicate how much more desirable opportunity is compared to hunt quality. Then I realized that having choices is really nice. Proposal II allows one to choose a more-solitary hunt with less likelihood of drawing, or a more-busy hunt with more likelihood, just like the opportunities we have with the different elk hunts. Proposal II just keeps the more-solitary hunts OIL (like Valle Vidal). I'm sure that the busy open hunts will still have pretty low draw odds (functionally OIL), so I don't really expect a real increase in the chances of drawing, but the choice is available.

My preference depends on whether the difference in hunter density really is significant. The guy who's been around the on-base hunts most says 20 more hunters (75 -> 95) is a significant impact to hunt quality, but the satisfaction ratings may not support that opinion.

You know guys, we're just filling out our oryx applications for 2019-20 a little early, eh? Which do you apply for your first choice: any one of the 9 hunts with 85 tags, one of the 5 hunts with 65 tags, or one of the 4 hunts with 100 tags?

I guess I'm leaning towards Proposal II.

Sorry for running on...and on.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-27-18 AT 06:37PM (MST)[p]Ruben_Soady,

Thank your for taking the time to provide your feedback. Your exactly right it's nice to have options. Currently, you won't find the proposals online and that's the exact reason I made this post before the survey so hunters could be more informed. I am hoping the department will have both proposals available for the town meetings for discussion. Here is the break down, of course it's not final but a solid example of what they would look like.

Currently OIL/VET/BRK
Licenses 45/5/15
Licenses PER HUNT 5 hunts = 65
Licenses per YTH/MI 1 hunt = 50
TOTAL OIL Opportunities (OIL/VET/MI) = 270
Total licenses = 390


Proposal 1 - OIL/VET/BRK
Licenses =. 65/5/15
Licenses PER HUNT 9 hunts = 85
Licenses per YTH/MI 1 hunt = 50
TOTAL OIL Opportunities (OIL/VET/MI)= 650
Total licenses = 815

Proposal 2 - OIL/VET/ANY One Can Apply
Licenses =. 60 /5 / 100
Licenses PER HUNT 5 hunts OIL/VET = 65
Licenses PER OPEN 4 Hunt = 100
Licenses per YTH/MI 1 hunt = 50
TOTAL OIL Opportunities (OIL/VET/MI)= 340
Total licenses = 775

I hope this helps. Please make sure to email your feedback to the department or attend a meeting.

Thank you for participating.
 
Hey Gilbert, I edited my post to get the tag numbers to better align with yours and so I don't add confusion.

I think one of the issues in this discussion is deciding what "OIL" means. I think there are three ways to look at it with respect to oryx hunting on the base.

A) OIL is an administrative rule that prohibits one from applying for a hunt for which they've already received a tag. This is the NMGF definition.

B) OIL is reality when the draw odds are 3%...An applicant is likely to draw only one tag in 33 years...

C) OIL is sometimes used (as slang) to describe the quality of a hunt, whether that is the quality of the trophies, the low density of hunters, high density of trophies, or an area that has limited access. I think we should use NMGF's High Quality Hunt and/or High Demand Hunt designations to quantitatively describe this.

I think that Proposal #1 affects the quality of the hunt, by increasing the number of tags available for each hunt. It is a simple trade off of quality of hunt for quantity of tags.

I think that Proposal #2 maintains the quality of the hunt, and also adds quantity of tags, at the expense of some perceived unfairness of offering 'open application' tags. These open app tags, though, are for a lower quality hunt (more hunters), so the demand for those tags should be a little lower.

We'll only have to look at the applicant numbers and hunter satisfaction ratings to tell how either proposal works.

All of these hunts, however, are going to have really low draw odds and thus will be OIL by def "B" above, but at least there would be some choices available.
 
Reuben_ Soady,

Good job with the update. You did a fair and objective comparaison with legit questions for hunters to answer for themselves.

Please share your views with the department via email or at a meeting.

Thanks
 
This may not be popular, but here goes.

Keep all the on-range hunts as OIL.
Have several hunt codes with fewer tags for a more quality true "OIL" experience.
Have the last two hunts with more tags and state on the proclamation that it might hamper the once in a lifetime experience.
I would bet that there would still be significant demand for the last two hunt codes.
 
NMhunter4life,

You have a legit view. I've had several people tell me the same thing. Ultimately, I hope everyone expresses themselves so the department and commission have a good foundation on how to structure these hunts based on everyone feedback.

Please forward your feedback to the department via email or attend a meeting.
 
I feel strongly that the State and hunters overall are missing the boat on proper management of these amazing critters. State officials tell us that it's impossible in today's world to foster the growth and expansion of Oryx outside WSMR . I'm here to say that the introduction of Oryx into much of SE NM would be wonderful. They co-exist right now very well with deer/ elk/ antelope. Help me understand folks why I'm out of touch.
 
NMHunt4Life - I concur that keeping all on-base hunts OIL would be better, but I think that the Commission will be selecting one of two proposals and that the time for new proposals is past.

We both believe that demand will be high enough that even the 100-tag hunts will be functionally OIL (3% draw odds). Sure, there will be several lucky dogs that repeatedly draw tags, but for the vast majority of us it'll be just like applying for Valles Caldera elk tags: nice to draw, but don't count on it.
 
I hope the proposal times had not passed and they can kinda combine the two.

I like many others like the idea of them ALL staying OIL tags, just add the last four hunts with 100 tags also as OIL.
 
Servehim,

There is no question they would thrive. The only limiting factors these animals have is long exposure to very cold weather. There is no terrain in the southern United States they would not occupy. They live in juniper/pinon woodland forests to the sand dune from 8,000 feet of elevation to the desert floor. They don't need water comparatively. They can breed all year round and once they reach adulthood they have no real predators.

My opinion .. the main reason this will never happen is because of land jurisdiction conflicts and grazing.

In the late 60's they considered releasing them just north of Red Rock breeding facility. They were not released on public land for several reasons, but one of the major reasons was not knowing what the effects on the ecosystem would be for a population that had no movement restrictions. They could cross into Arizona or even Mexico. The second big issues was grazing. Land owners, Lease's of BLM and state lands were against it due to competition with cattle.

Fast forward to 2018 you have even more red tape....You have the US Fish and Wildlife, National Monuments, Refuges who have policies on exotics, plus Bureau of Land Management and other organizations that will be against it because of the simple fact these animals are exotics and shouldn't be on the landscape and they will compete with native wildlife that was there, but more importantly cattle! Their diet is 80% grasses. Currently, BLM has a specific numbers for ibex that are allowed on the Florida's.

What we know now is, they have been seen as far north as Corona, south to El Paso TX, east to Weed,NM and as far west as Nut NM between Deming and Hatch and that's with consistent hunting pressure. They won't stay in specific area where you think nothing lives. They will move just like they did on WSMR.

If the population was allowed to flourish off range throughout the southwest BLM and their leases, land owners, refuges, national parks would have issues with it. I can almost guarantee it, especially since there is an established population that provides opportunity.

I know this may not justify it for you, but that's all I got...

Thanks
 
Yes, there is time. That's why the meetings and your feedback is important to the department. The department will present a recommendation to the commission on May 22nd and then in June the commission will make final vote on that recommendation so now is the time to get your feedback in.

Thanks
 
>Servehim,
>
>There is no question they would
>thrive. The only limiting factors
>these animals have is long
>exposure to very cold weather.
>There is no terrain in
>the southern United States they
>would not occupy. They live
>in juniper/pinon woodland forests to
>the sand dune from 8,000
>feet of elevation to the
>desert floor. They don't need
>water comparatively. They can breed
>all year round and once
>they reach adulthood they have
>no real predators.
>
>My opinion .. the main reason
>this will never happen is
>because of land jurisdiction conflicts
>and grazing.
>
>In the late 60's they considered
>releasing them just north of
>Red Rock breeding facility. They
>were not released on public
>land for several reasons, but
>one of the major reasons
>was not knowing what the
>effects on the ecosystem would
>be for a population that
>had no movement restrictions. They
>could cross into Arizona or
>even Mexico. The second big
>issues was grazing. Land owners,
>Lease's of BLM and state
>lands were against it due
>to competition with cattle.
>
>Fast forward to 2018 you have
>even more red tape....You have
>the US Fish and Wildlife,
>National Monuments, Refuges who have
>policies on exotics, plus Bureau
>of Land Management and other
>organizations that will be against
>it because of the simple
>fact these animals are exotics
>and shouldn't be on the
>landscape and they will compete
>with native wildlife that
>was there, but more importantly
>cattle! Their diet is 80%
>grasses. Currently, BLM has a
>specific numbers for ibex that
>are allowed on the Florida's.
>
>
>What we know now is, they
>have been seen as far
>north as Corona, south to
>El Paso TX, east to
>Weed,NM and as far west
>as Nut NM between Deming
>and Hatch and that's with
>consistent hunting pressure. They won't
>stay in specific area where
>you think nothing lives. They
>will move just like they
>did on WSMR.
>
>If the population was allowed to
>flourish off range throughout the
>southwest BLM and their leases,
>land owners, refuges, national parks
>would have issues with it.
>I can almost guarantee it,
>especially since there is an
>established population that provides opportunity.
>
>
>I know this may not justify
>it for you, but that's
>all I got...
>
>Thanks
>
>
Excellent response, thank you Oryxrus, So the issue is that Oryx are just to prolific . Just a couple points that I feel are worthy of being entered into the conversation. Landowners concerned with overgrazing hurting cattle could more than supliiment that loss in revenue by selling landowner tags..2K each covers a lot of grass. I would think that after 60 years on and around WSMR most of the Eco system questions would have been answered. These are such a desired animal to harvest that year round hunting off range would keep populations in check . The only concern I can see is them spreading into National Parks and Monuments where hunting is prohibited.
 
MM,

Game and Fish has posted the official proposed Hunt Structure options for Oryx. I was real happy to see they provided the public an opportunity to compare the proposals before the town meetings next week.

http://www.wildlife.state.nm.us/dow...unt-Recommendation-Differences-WSMR-NMDGF.pdf

There are a couple of points I would like to make in light of the survey and the proposed hunt structure table provided by the department, along with some comments on this feed.

1. WSMR proposed and worked with the department on both proposals. The department has recommend one, which I know WSMR will support.

2. The survey and table give the impression WSMR is pushing and wanting Proposal 2 (WSMR recommendation). WSMR's stance was to provide OPTIONS to hunters, not one or the other.

3. Both proposals meet population management goals.

4. My only goal for this post is to ensure both proposal's are fairly being presented so hunters can make up their own decision.

My hope is the department is able to get strong feedback in support of one of the proposals or develop a third proposal that meets the public's expectations to be presented May 22nd for the commission to review.

If there are any questions or concerns regarding the table please let me know. One thing to pay attention to is the hunt designations between once in a lifetime and those that are not once in a lifetime.

Please make a meeting or send an [email protected]

Thank you
 
I wasn't able to make the Las Cruces meeting last night because I was too busy at work. Did I miss anything that hasn't already been discussed?
 
LAST EDITED ON May-08-18 AT 08:41PM (MST)[p]BrianID,

The Las Cruces meeting had 14 people including two commissioners and two WSMR representatives.

My hope is many are emailing their comments.

That being said discussion was good. Game and Fish, did a good job presenting the proposals and managing the meeting. They had some good discussions about the new Barbary rule.
Summary of the discussion from my perspective:

Oryx- the majority want to manage for quality hunts, but also wanted to find a way to maximize OIL opportunity. About four were in favor of proposal 2. Most were in favor the veteran change, but one that was against it and had some good points. My opinion, there needs to be a hybrid of the two proposals to meet everyone?s comments.

Barbary - big discussion, not enough days. In the end most felt combining all the units wasnt the best idea, but thought maybe if they made each unit their own hunt to spread hunters out. Also talks about making that first hunt in October a bow hunt. I am not covering it all, but in a nutshell. I personally think they should leave it as is, but I do like the thought of a October Barbary Hunt.

Ibex - mainly management questions, decreasing billy trophy quality concerns, population size..etc..

Today is Roswell..again low turn out about 10 people.
Oryx- few comments that they want OIL maximized.
Barbary - few comments to leave it as is. One who really liked the proposed structure.
Ibex - again just management questions, trophy quality was brought up again.
Meeting was done early.

See what Albuquerque has to say tomorrow.
 
Albuquerque meeting...

Had 7 people show up including 2 WSMR representatives. Very little feedback. There were several older vets who had strong views to leave the vet designation for Iraq and afghan vets. Several wanted to see the Barbary hunts increased from 10 days to 15 days. The exotic rule was the topic for about 30 mins, the rest of the meeting was discussing pronghorn rule.

Again, the department did a great job presenting all the proposals fairly.

I wanted to thank everyone for participating on this post and I hope everyone emailed their comments to the department.

Till next time, happy hunting!
God bless
 
I know it's a day late and a dollar short, but what ever happened to the OIL non-typical option?

This option was "easier" to draw back in the day because you wouldn't necessarily go home with what some would call a trophy, but you had the chance to experience a quality hunt nonetheless and if it were a broke horn on one side you could always get it repaired.

This is whay I drew back in '01 and when 9/11 happened. We were all reassigned to a 1 day hunt and could either accept or decline. I accepted because I didn't know if I would ever draw again.
 

Similar threads

MADD hunts
DIY & Semi Guided Mexico hunts available
Replies
0
Views
479
MADD hunts
MADD hunts
bogart
Kansas Whitetail Hunts
Replies
9
Views
2k
DeerMadness
D
Founder
Colorado 4th Season Trophy Deer
Replies
2
Views
1k
Founder
Founder

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

IMG_3580.JPG
DSCN0046.JPG
C2BB6A59-557C-4632-9701-673B580B8B25.jpeg
Screenshot_20221209_122419_Gallery.jpg
Screenshot_20231104_201816_Gallery.jpg
HUNT3602 - Copy.JPG
916A4CF2-0F45-45FE-8115-BE2B42615AFC.jpeg
sunset.jpg
20200229_174319.jpg
Screenshot_20211109-145445_Messages.jpg
STC_1297.JPG
37B0AAEE-244D-4B55-9697-F308E467D781.jpeg

New Mexico Guides & Outfitters

H & A Outfitters

Private and public land hunts since 1992 for elk, mule deer, sheep, pronghorn, black Bear & lion hunts.

505 Outfitters

Public and private land big game hunts. Rifle, muzzleloader and archery hunts available. Free Draw Application Service!

Sierra Blanca Outfitters

Offering a wide array of hunt opportunities and putting clients in prime position to bag a trophy.

Urge 2 Hunt

Hunts in New Mexico on private ranches and remote public land in the top units. Elk vouchers available.

Mangas Outfitters

Landowner tags available! Hunt big bulls and bucks. Any season and multiple hunt units to choose from.

Back
Top Bottom