New Bighorn Sheep Rule approved....
- Thread starter Oryxrus
- Start date
Bighorn management in NM is awesome! They seem to run it based on scientific data rather than with back-room deals and politics. Did game and fish lump the tags together so that they can give non-residents some tags? I personally don't mind giving them some tag because I love to hunter other places. The outfitter, landowner, and guide set asides piss me off because they are nothing but a form of welfare! These set aside tags hurt everyone, residents and non-resident hunters alike!
S
sneekey
Guest
Just in case anyone else was wondering what was being talked about...
http://www.nmwildlife.org/news/commission
Sneekey
http://www.nmwildlife.org/news/commission
Sneekey
LAST EDITED ON Sep-02-14 AT 11:58PM (MST)[p]Your exactly right hunting1, I am learning people just didn't know.
I never post anything usually just read posts, but it was really surprising that no one had an issue with losing sheep tags. The system we have in place now addresses non-resident and outfitter tag allocations if we agree with them or not.
As sheep populations increase those tags would be awarded accordingly in the future. LET'S not forget when NM DELISTED Desert Bighorn sheep the first year ONLY 1 resident got a ram tag out of 16 and it wasn't much better the second year. This year after the terk injunction was overturned NM residence finally got what they deserved. Now, a step back in my opinion.
Although the rule passed, everyone should still express their view if they didn't have the chance. If the majority of residence don't agree with the new rule then your voice wasnt heard and someone else's voice was. If the majority of residence agrees with the new rule I guess I am in the minority.
Email them now if you haven't already:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
I never post anything usually just read posts, but it was really surprising that no one had an issue with losing sheep tags. The system we have in place now addresses non-resident and outfitter tag allocations if we agree with them or not.
As sheep populations increase those tags would be awarded accordingly in the future. LET'S not forget when NM DELISTED Desert Bighorn sheep the first year ONLY 1 resident got a ram tag out of 16 and it wasn't much better the second year. This year after the terk injunction was overturned NM residence finally got what they deserved. Now, a step back in my opinion.
Although the rule passed, everyone should still express their view if they didn't have the chance. If the majority of residence don't agree with the new rule then your voice wasnt heard and someone else's voice was. If the majority of residence agrees with the new rule I guess I am in the minority.
Email them now if you haven't already:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
J
jamaro
Guest
This was a bad deed and it was slid in at the last moment.. We had been tracking it and we had word from several commissioners that it wouldn't be brought up and they did.. THEY BETRAYED US... Plain and simple.... There are still questions on if what they did was legal and we are pushing the issue... PLEASE sign up for the NMWF Alerts.. and BE HEARD...
This entire thing is just sad and disgusting... The canned response that Ramos is giving is just wrong... He is saying that the quota made them do it... WRONG... They caved to outfitters....
The part that really gets me livid is that for years when 15 of 16 tags were going to NR, they just told us... "That is just how the math works out, to bad so sad".. They should have said the same to the Outfitters... If you guys ever doubt that the Outfitters are against NR look at this and remember this...
J-
This entire thing is just sad and disgusting... The canned response that Ramos is giving is just wrong... He is saying that the quota made them do it... WRONG... They caved to outfitters....
The part that really gets me livid is that for years when 15 of 16 tags were going to NR, they just told us... "That is just how the math works out, to bad so sad".. They should have said the same to the Outfitters... If you guys ever doubt that the Outfitters are against NR look at this and remember this...
J-
It should be known that several options were looked at. Yes the Council of Guides submitted a recommendation. I am sure Jamaro's organization submitted an idea as well. If it were such a good and fair proposal it would have been approved. Jamaro gives the outfitting community way to much credit and clearly he does not like the industry. He forgets when there was no quota and everything was driven by supply and demand. He will call the outfitters subsidized. Fact is a huge chunk of market driven business was killed when a quota was put into effect subsidizing the residents of NM. Sure the outfitters fought for a piece of the pie just like the regular residents. Their businesses were being regulated by legislation that affected their livelihoods. Anyone is going to do what it takes to make a living. He forgets that the NR already gets screwed by the multiple cost of the tag. He forgets that 40% or more of this state is FEDERAL LAND meaning NR taxpayers pay for all the management on these lands. Funny fact is pretty much 90% of the Bighorns in this state are either on BLM or USFS land. He forgets that 90% of the donations made to the National and State Chapters of the Wild Sheep Foundations come from Non-Residents.
BTW-Both the National and State Chapters of the WSF supported the proposal. Ya sure....they are owned by outfitters as well. Give me a break.
BTW-Both the National and State Chapters of the WSF supported the proposal. Ya sure....they are owned by outfitters as well. Give me a break.
HornedToad
Active Member
- Messages
- 415
JFWRC - Great response. But expect now to receive tons of hate mail.
Some of these "Residents" behave as though they won't be happy until they get 100% of the tags and Non-Residents are shut out entirely from hunting Federal land in New Mexico. 85% of the tags just ain't good enough. At that point, I will favor shutting down all hunting on Federal public land in New Mexico. Why should the privilege to hunt on our Federal public lands be restricted to the privileged few. Better if no one was allowed to hunt those lands, just like in the National Parks.
It may be that the National and State Chapters of the WSF supported the proposal because they understand the need to retain support from hunters and conservationists across all of America, both financially and legislatively, for the protection, growth and hunting of bighorn sheep herds in New Mexico.
Okay now... bring on the hate.
HT
Some of these "Residents" behave as though they won't be happy until they get 100% of the tags and Non-Residents are shut out entirely from hunting Federal land in New Mexico. 85% of the tags just ain't good enough. At that point, I will favor shutting down all hunting on Federal public land in New Mexico. Why should the privilege to hunt on our Federal public lands be restricted to the privileged few. Better if no one was allowed to hunt those lands, just like in the National Parks.
It may be that the National and State Chapters of the WSF supported the proposal because they understand the need to retain support from hunters and conservationists across all of America, both financially and legislatively, for the protection, growth and hunting of bighorn sheep herds in New Mexico.
Okay now... bring on the hate.
HT
JRWC,
Your entitled outfitter attitude to steal tags from normal hunters infuriates me. Especially just so that you can pad your pocket with the blood money you earn by selling stolen tags on expensive guided hunt! It especially pisses me off when outfitters coordinated the theft during back room deals in Santa Fe. I am confident that a lot of normal hunts on this website have a son or daughter like me that had a better chance of drawing a tag next year until outfitter like you decided to get so greedy!!
By the way, these are corrections to a couple of statements in your post.
1. The state owns 100% of the animals on the private and public land. The tags going to residents is not a subsidy for residents in any sense of the word.
2. The fact that New Mexico has federal land doesn't matter, since the state owns 100% of the animals.
Your entitled outfitter attitude to steal tags from normal hunters infuriates me. Especially just so that you can pad your pocket with the blood money you earn by selling stolen tags on expensive guided hunt! It especially pisses me off when outfitters coordinated the theft during back room deals in Santa Fe. I am confident that a lot of normal hunts on this website have a son or daughter like me that had a better chance of drawing a tag next year until outfitter like you decided to get so greedy!!
By the way, these are corrections to a couple of statements in your post.
1. The state owns 100% of the animals on the private and public land. The tags going to residents is not a subsidy for residents in any sense of the word.
2. The fact that New Mexico has federal land doesn't matter, since the state owns 100% of the animals.
Love you 2 nmhntr-
http://www.coloradocollege.edu/dotAsset/fc919f40-c24a-4287-ab6c-d649e4dca7a6.pdf
It's more complicated than you think. Second page....lower left Klepp V. New Mexico.
Keep stirring it and you will erect a senator from another state that will introduce legislation regarding the management of wildlife on Federal Lands.
Question? so if wildlife are on deeded land, does the owner own the wildlife? Again, keep stirring it and we will all get answers we don't like.
I to am infuriated by your entitlement attitude
http://www.coloradocollege.edu/dotAsset/fc919f40-c24a-4287-ab6c-d649e4dca7a6.pdf
It's more complicated than you think. Second page....lower left Klepp V. New Mexico.
Keep stirring it and you will erect a senator from another state that will introduce legislation regarding the management of wildlife on Federal Lands.
Question? so if wildlife are on deeded land, does the owner own the wildlife? Again, keep stirring it and we will all get answers we don't like.
I to am infuriated by your entitlement attitude
OCHO
Active Member
- Messages
- 334
JRWC,
I don't think the attitude that many people feel towards guides & outfitting formed itself from a dry pond. This has been something that is happening based on actions and interactions amongst the field for a while. Funny thing is before money was so big in hunting guides, outfitters and hunters never had such hatred.
Do both parties have fault no doubt. But 10 - 20 years ago these things were never even a topic. Little hick ups yes but not the hate as we see now.
As far as federal lands whom do we thank for the sheep being planted their! Is it not likely this was a long term plan from people to A) over change a rule to shut people up for seconds and than B) go right back after the tags again.
You talk as though the people have been so greedy?! The vast majority of every big horn in this state has been taken via guides and outfitters so how does the residents getting more tags seem unfair. Cause now some DIY hunters have. Chance to hunt them and likely not use a guide?
In every state the highest selling tags are big horn so to say this is about anything less then money is BS!!
More resident tags means less people being outfitted for sheep = less money opportunity.
I don't think the attitude that many people feel towards guides & outfitting formed itself from a dry pond. This has been something that is happening based on actions and interactions amongst the field for a while. Funny thing is before money was so big in hunting guides, outfitters and hunters never had such hatred.
Do both parties have fault no doubt. But 10 - 20 years ago these things were never even a topic. Little hick ups yes but not the hate as we see now.
As far as federal lands whom do we thank for the sheep being planted their! Is it not likely this was a long term plan from people to A) over change a rule to shut people up for seconds and than B) go right back after the tags again.
You talk as though the people have been so greedy?! The vast majority of every big horn in this state has been taken via guides and outfitters so how does the residents getting more tags seem unfair. Cause now some DIY hunters have. Chance to hunt them and likely not use a guide?
In every state the highest selling tags are big horn so to say this is about anything less then money is BS!!
More resident tags means less people being outfitted for sheep = less money opportunity.
Ocho-
You are right....a lot has changed in this world and it seems to get more polarized and complicated by the second now days.
I understand your thoughts and respect them. Many don't know what it was like 20 years ago when there was no quota and supply and demand of hunting birthed the first quota. I rue the day when their livelihood is regulated out of business when it was not an issue before and someone else's recreational desire impacts them so greatly.Back when the fight for a quota started it was elk in Gila. Should we have gone back and made it 100% resident at that time until things were even steven?
Another question? "Why is Fishing in NM not under a quota." Is is because there fishing is no big deal, no fighting on supply and demand....?
Please call Eric Rominger at Game and Fish in Santa Fe and ask him where the money to support the sheep comes from.
Also take a look at where the money came from for New Mexico's Wildlife areas. I think you will be surprised how much Federal money is injected into the Department treasury. When I say Federal, I mean money generated from Pittman Roberston and other other Acts that support conservation. Right now, NR's cannot access the WMA's.
You are right....a lot has changed in this world and it seems to get more polarized and complicated by the second now days.
I understand your thoughts and respect them. Many don't know what it was like 20 years ago when there was no quota and supply and demand of hunting birthed the first quota. I rue the day when their livelihood is regulated out of business when it was not an issue before and someone else's recreational desire impacts them so greatly.Back when the fight for a quota started it was elk in Gila. Should we have gone back and made it 100% resident at that time until things were even steven?
Another question? "Why is Fishing in NM not under a quota." Is is because there fishing is no big deal, no fighting on supply and demand....?
Please call Eric Rominger at Game and Fish in Santa Fe and ask him where the money to support the sheep comes from.
Also take a look at where the money came from for New Mexico's Wildlife areas. I think you will be surprised how much Federal money is injected into the Department treasury. When I say Federal, I mean money generated from Pittman Roberston and other other Acts that support conservation. Right now, NR's cannot access the WMA's.
cantgetdrawn
Active Member
- Messages
- 162
LAST EDITED ON Sep-09-14 AT 08:53AM (MST)[p]Double post
cantgetdrawn
Active Member
- Messages
- 162
Below is the link to the Governor's web page. It is my hope that NM Residents will let her know what they think of the commission's decision to cater to special interests and the subvert the law she signed at the expense of resident hunter. The end result if this stands over the years is that hundreds of residents will never get a chance to hunt bighorn sheep in their home state.
http://www.governor.state.nm.us/Contact_the_Governor.aspx
http://www.governor.state.nm.us/Contact_the_Governor.aspx
It's comical when people try to argue the federal land angle. JFWRC, I've heard a few attempts at explaining why there should be any outfitters tags in the pool, but nothing with merit. Care to give me your reasoning why it shouldn't have stayed at the proposed 80/20?
LAST EDITED ON Sep-09-14 AT 04:09PM (MST)[p]First... I respect the two commissioners? that took the time to contacted me and explain why they voted for the rule. I believe we buckled under pressure and sold the farm when we just need to sell a cow.
I understand there needs to be some opportunity for NR which I am fine with, but not to the extent of combing hunt codes and increasing tags to make it happen and at the same time taking away residence opportunity. There should have been a more conservative compromise for these coveted tags if something had to be done.
Are we going to start combined hunt codes for other species? Are we going to combine all 16 elk units under one hunt code to provide more opportunity to NR and Outfitters?
We went from 12 tags for Rocky?s to 24 rams tags . 12 Rocky ewe tags to 62 tags, plus 12 ewe bow tags.
Deserts rams we went from 16 to 27.
I understand we're hunting some new populations, but all the tags are lumped together. To the best of my knowledge the department has not indicated how they are going to assign those tags. This allows the department a lot of freedom to assign tags to each perspective population without any accountability in my opinion. This could dramatically change trophy sheep hunting in NM. The aggressive increase of tags to provide opportunity will in the near future reduce trophy quality. We won't be harvesting 170+ sheep anymore, unless the department dumps out world class trophy breeders from Red Rock again like they did in 2012 or trade for more rams from Mexico for pronghorn.
Since 1976 (terk) we've been told in the words of Jamaro ?That is just how the math works out, to bad so sad." The fear of lawsuits was too much to bare for our commission for one year while residences have coped with it for 38 years.
Money....
Your right the Wild Sheep Foundation helps fund wildlife projects in NM. They should, these are our animals they're auctioning off....
1. They auction one Big Game enhancement package which generates hundreds of thousands of dollars each year and all proceeds are used in NM.
2. They auction 2 sheep tags with NMDGF one desert and one Rocky.
And then??
3. The NM Chapter of the Wild Sheep Foundation raffles two authorizations...
NOT including the Big Game enhancement package funds, since 1990, sheep auctions have generated 2.8 MILLION DOLLARS!!! Since 2000 Raffle tags have generated almost 500k.
In total 3.3 million dollars....
And that's great news for Sheep in NM and the wealthy NR or R auction hunter's that donates 180K to hunt sheep in NM. The raffle is a great opportunity for all NR and R who buy tickets.
Ultimately, our animals are raising most of that money for NM wildlife. The goal is to provide for our wildlife here in NM for us to enjoy and share with others, but not to the extent where we are hindering residences chances of hunting these magnificent animals.
I understand there needs to be some opportunity for NR which I am fine with, but not to the extent of combing hunt codes and increasing tags to make it happen and at the same time taking away residence opportunity. There should have been a more conservative compromise for these coveted tags if something had to be done.
Are we going to start combined hunt codes for other species? Are we going to combine all 16 elk units under one hunt code to provide more opportunity to NR and Outfitters?
We went from 12 tags for Rocky?s to 24 rams tags . 12 Rocky ewe tags to 62 tags, plus 12 ewe bow tags.
Deserts rams we went from 16 to 27.
I understand we're hunting some new populations, but all the tags are lumped together. To the best of my knowledge the department has not indicated how they are going to assign those tags. This allows the department a lot of freedom to assign tags to each perspective population without any accountability in my opinion. This could dramatically change trophy sheep hunting in NM. The aggressive increase of tags to provide opportunity will in the near future reduce trophy quality. We won't be harvesting 170+ sheep anymore, unless the department dumps out world class trophy breeders from Red Rock again like they did in 2012 or trade for more rams from Mexico for pronghorn.
Since 1976 (terk) we've been told in the words of Jamaro ?That is just how the math works out, to bad so sad." The fear of lawsuits was too much to bare for our commission for one year while residences have coped with it for 38 years.
Money....
Your right the Wild Sheep Foundation helps fund wildlife projects in NM. They should, these are our animals they're auctioning off....
1. They auction one Big Game enhancement package which generates hundreds of thousands of dollars each year and all proceeds are used in NM.
2. They auction 2 sheep tags with NMDGF one desert and one Rocky.
And then??
3. The NM Chapter of the Wild Sheep Foundation raffles two authorizations...
NOT including the Big Game enhancement package funds, since 1990, sheep auctions have generated 2.8 MILLION DOLLARS!!! Since 2000 Raffle tags have generated almost 500k.
In total 3.3 million dollars....
And that's great news for Sheep in NM and the wealthy NR or R auction hunter's that donates 180K to hunt sheep in NM. The raffle is a great opportunity for all NR and R who buy tickets.
Ultimately, our animals are raising most of that money for NM wildlife. The goal is to provide for our wildlife here in NM for us to enjoy and share with others, but not to the extent where we are hindering residences chances of hunting these magnificent animals.
OCHO
Active Member
- Messages
- 334
LAST EDITED ON Sep-09-14 AT 08:30PM (MST)[p]Here is the thing... I don't think any one of the residents of NM would mind increasing costs on somethings to help out! Frankly, if as much effort was put into the states management and animal care (inparticular mule deer) things would be that much better off!
You know we get random $5 charges of 10 different habitat stamp charges why can't we initiate something to help the management of animals as whole in the entire system.... Lets raise mule deer cost to more than javelina for starters.
Lets think about it the actual tag cost resident or non-res is reflected on popularity... Mule deer here ehh so $40.. Ibex, Oryx, Bighorn all $90 and up. Which animals are on the most prolific decline? The cheapest tag and least popular to pursue a trophy!
The residents of the state invest $100's & $1000's of dollars a year even $20 or so dollars on 50 - 70 apps would make a difference.
I hope a solid resolution can be found in the near future. Fact is there has to be a comprimise and some teamwork because diveded groups all seeking differnt things have no where the influence one group in accord does.
You know we get random $5 charges of 10 different habitat stamp charges why can't we initiate something to help the management of animals as whole in the entire system.... Lets raise mule deer cost to more than javelina for starters.
Lets think about it the actual tag cost resident or non-res is reflected on popularity... Mule deer here ehh so $40.. Ibex, Oryx, Bighorn all $90 and up. Which animals are on the most prolific decline? The cheapest tag and least popular to pursue a trophy!
The residents of the state invest $100's & $1000's of dollars a year even $20 or so dollars on 50 - 70 apps would make a difference.
I hope a solid resolution can be found in the near future. Fact is there has to be a comprimise and some teamwork because diveded groups all seeking differnt things have no where the influence one group in accord does.
HornedToad
Active Member
- Messages
- 415
You clowns who keep saying "the states own the wildlife" and "the wildlife is ours" are just so flat wrong, and yet nothing will keep you from repeating that BS.
The fact is that the wildlife in America is owned by the PEOPLE of the United States of America. Look it up. It's in the Constitution. Now, Federal law delegates to the states the responsibility for managing the wildlife within their respective boundaries. And when one can "manage" something to one's exclusive use and benefit, then that management right can begin to seem like ownership. But it is not ownership.
I'd like to see one of you guys who continue to repeat the "we own the animals" nonsense give one reference to the specific law that spells out that ownership right. Good luck. What are you going to find? A deed? A patent right? It ain't there.
The ownership of America's wildlife belongs to all the PEOPLE. And if the PEOPLE can't somehow come together and find a way to fairly allocate the opportunity to take that wildlife, then all taking of wildlife on public land should be suspended.
HT
The fact is that the wildlife in America is owned by the PEOPLE of the United States of America. Look it up. It's in the Constitution. Now, Federal law delegates to the states the responsibility for managing the wildlife within their respective boundaries. And when one can "manage" something to one's exclusive use and benefit, then that management right can begin to seem like ownership. But it is not ownership.
I'd like to see one of you guys who continue to repeat the "we own the animals" nonsense give one reference to the specific law that spells out that ownership right. Good luck. What are you going to find? A deed? A patent right? It ain't there.
The ownership of America's wildlife belongs to all the PEOPLE. And if the PEOPLE can't somehow come together and find a way to fairly allocate the opportunity to take that wildlife, then all taking of wildlife on public land should be suspended.
HT
cantgetdrawn
Active Member
- Messages
- 162
Same old prove I'm wrong argument, which is BS. What precedent do you base this conclusion? The 10th amendment states that stats have domain over anything not specifically under the domain of the federal government.
This is why wildlife is held in trust by the state for it's citizens.
This is why wildlife is held in trust by the state for it's citizens.
S
sneekey
Guest
Ahhhh...I see! Everyone owns the animals until some special interest group gets to impose their views on the rest of the so called 'owners'. In example, California and mountain lions. A person can't go to a neighboring state and legally harvest an animal without losing their job in Cali. Ridiculousness!
My point, you may ask...special interest groups. Decipher or spin as you see fit.
Sneekey
My point, you may ask...special interest groups. Decipher or spin as you see fit.
Sneekey
S
sneekey
Guest
I've had the opportunity to experience a NM sheep hunt with my dad. One of the best hunts imaginable. Biggest ram...no, but waking up in a tent at timberline and knowing it is 'sheep on' wow! Maybe I will not experience that again but the new rule, can't believe it is happening.
Sneekey
Sneekey
It is sad NMPAUL... we buckled less than a year. It says sportsmen need to take a more active role so their voices are heard. We need to be more proactive and not just reacting all the time.
We're not like CA yet! In Dona Ana County in Feb 2014, the city council made a formal statement to a Predator Hunting Organization that they will not support any predator hunting events in the county or allows them to have a convention for their organization and recommended they choose another location in the future. The year before one was cancelled in northern NM.
It all starts with small decisions...bit by bit.
Make sure your views and voices are heard or rules like these are passed.
We're not like CA yet! In Dona Ana County in Feb 2014, the city council made a formal statement to a Predator Hunting Organization that they will not support any predator hunting events in the county or allows them to have a convention for their organization and recommended they choose another location in the future. The year before one was cancelled in northern NM.
It all starts with small decisions...bit by bit.
Make sure your views and voices are heard or rules like these are passed.
HornedToad
Active Member
- Messages
- 415
Now tell me again, why is this so sad?
Under the new rule, won't non-resident opportunity for bighorn sheep in New Mexico still be only a maximum of two or three tags? Other than these few, won't all the remaining tags go to residents? As in... almost all of the tags.
It seems that anything less than residents getting 100% of the tags and non-residents getting 0% will be unacceptable to the "so sad" and "buckling" crowd.
Under the new rule, won't non-resident opportunity for bighorn sheep in New Mexico still be only a maximum of two or three tags? Other than these few, won't all the remaining tags go to residents? As in... almost all of the tags.
It seems that anything less than residents getting 100% of the tags and non-residents getting 0% will be unacceptable to the "so sad" and "buckling" crowd.
LAST EDITED ON Sep-11-14 AT 09:32AM (MST)[p]For me it's not about the NR tags themselves, it's about how the system was bent in the name of management, and the approval of authorizations on ranches that have closed state land without a plan in place.
I do have a problem with outfitters tags for any species.
I do have a problem with outfitters tags for any species.
smarba
Active Member
- Messages
- 560
SLM voices my opinion also.
I have no problems with NR getting tags for all game. We are all NRs somewhere.
It's the speed & method of which this rule was pushed through.
The Res got raped (no better word for it) handing over the majority of desert bighorn tags for years. All the while Game Commission had the authority and legal precedent to overturn TERK and apply the Quota, yet they DID NOTHING.
MANY groups & individuals fought and finally got TERK overturned.
Then as a slap in the face in less than a year the GC swiftly bent over backwards to twist the conditions to ensure that bighorn tags are given to NRs & Outfitters. In typical fashion with little advanced warning and the decision being a done deal before it had even been presented to the public, whom they are supposed to represent. With no plan for what appears to be opening a can of worms to implement LO tags for bighorns. We all know how well LO tags for elk is working.
Carl
I have no problems with NR getting tags for all game. We are all NRs somewhere.
It's the speed & method of which this rule was pushed through.
The Res got raped (no better word for it) handing over the majority of desert bighorn tags for years. All the while Game Commission had the authority and legal precedent to overturn TERK and apply the Quota, yet they DID NOTHING.
MANY groups & individuals fought and finally got TERK overturned.
Then as a slap in the face in less than a year the GC swiftly bent over backwards to twist the conditions to ensure that bighorn tags are given to NRs & Outfitters. In typical fashion with little advanced warning and the decision being a done deal before it had even been presented to the public, whom they are supposed to represent. With no plan for what appears to be opening a can of worms to implement LO tags for bighorns. We all know how well LO tags for elk is working.
Carl
S
sneekey
Guest
Beating this bush is helping 'no one'. How do we be proactive and make a change. I am not against NRs.
Sneekey
Sneekey
BuzzH
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 6,202
LAST EDITED ON Sep-12-14 AT 06:34PM (MST)[p] How do we be proactive and make a change
Take a look at how the outfitters and landowners are adversely impacting tag allocations and there is your answer.
Both groups are just slightly more organized than everyone else.
I can tell you that things are changing fast in states where Sportsmen are organized...gone are the days of outfitters and landowners ram-rodding their agendas.
In my home state of Wyoming, about 10 really active sportsmens groups have formed an alliance, which represents thousands of Wyoming Sportsmen/women.
Its great for individuals to write letters, contact their state reps, GF commissions, etc. However, collectively, you'll get things like meetings with the entire commission, meetings with legislators, meetings with the Governor, with the USFS, BLM, State DNRC, Game and Fish, etc. that you wont likely get on your own.
The great thing about an alliance is the information sharing on when, where, and who is meeting about GF issues. The Alliance is able to get information to thousands of sportsmen very quickly and efficiently as we all maintain email, phone numbers, and addresses for our memeberships. When we hear about things, we light up the information highways.
As the alliance becomes more active, attends meetings, etc. you will start to develope influence with the Commission, the legislature, governors office, Game and Fish, etc.
I'd also suggest making contact with local news paper editors, etc. to help get the word out about whats going on when things like this latest crap that you're dealing with happens. Call the folks out that are passing this B.S. without the involvement of the general DIY NM Sportsmen. Bring this stuff up in the local papers, local television news, etc. Let them know that YOUR PUBLIC WILDLIFE is being sold to special interests and that your commission and legislature are allowing it to happen.
You have the ability to influence local elections, who is on the commission, etc. If the commission, governor, and legislators dont want to be bothered with keeping public wildlife in public hands for the benefit of all citizens...throw the bums out. Many legislators and commissioners only hear one side of an issue, they need information to make better decisions. Remind them that sportsmen/women rarely miss an opportunity to vote.
Thats exactly how the landowners and outfitters get their way and they are in the MINORITY when compared to the number of sportsmen in the State of New Mexico. The one thing they do is show up and get themselves heard.
Get your sportsmens groups organized as a first step, put away the petty bickering (like the guy who made the comments about crying when you dont get your way), and take back control of YOUR PUBLIC WILDLIFE.
There is not a single Western State out there that isnt capable of making a huge difference, you just have to step up, get out of your comfort zone, and take back whats rightfully yours.
Take a look at how the outfitters and landowners are adversely impacting tag allocations and there is your answer.
Both groups are just slightly more organized than everyone else.
I can tell you that things are changing fast in states where Sportsmen are organized...gone are the days of outfitters and landowners ram-rodding their agendas.
In my home state of Wyoming, about 10 really active sportsmens groups have formed an alliance, which represents thousands of Wyoming Sportsmen/women.
Its great for individuals to write letters, contact their state reps, GF commissions, etc. However, collectively, you'll get things like meetings with the entire commission, meetings with legislators, meetings with the Governor, with the USFS, BLM, State DNRC, Game and Fish, etc. that you wont likely get on your own.
The great thing about an alliance is the information sharing on when, where, and who is meeting about GF issues. The Alliance is able to get information to thousands of sportsmen very quickly and efficiently as we all maintain email, phone numbers, and addresses for our memeberships. When we hear about things, we light up the information highways.
As the alliance becomes more active, attends meetings, etc. you will start to develope influence with the Commission, the legislature, governors office, Game and Fish, etc.
I'd also suggest making contact with local news paper editors, etc. to help get the word out about whats going on when things like this latest crap that you're dealing with happens. Call the folks out that are passing this B.S. without the involvement of the general DIY NM Sportsmen. Bring this stuff up in the local papers, local television news, etc. Let them know that YOUR PUBLIC WILDLIFE is being sold to special interests and that your commission and legislature are allowing it to happen.
You have the ability to influence local elections, who is on the commission, etc. If the commission, governor, and legislators dont want to be bothered with keeping public wildlife in public hands for the benefit of all citizens...throw the bums out. Many legislators and commissioners only hear one side of an issue, they need information to make better decisions. Remind them that sportsmen/women rarely miss an opportunity to vote.
Thats exactly how the landowners and outfitters get their way and they are in the MINORITY when compared to the number of sportsmen in the State of New Mexico. The one thing they do is show up and get themselves heard.
Get your sportsmens groups organized as a first step, put away the petty bickering (like the guy who made the comments about crying when you dont get your way), and take back control of YOUR PUBLIC WILDLIFE.
There is not a single Western State out there that isnt capable of making a huge difference, you just have to step up, get out of your comfort zone, and take back whats rightfully yours.
JRWC,
How many tags from DYI hunters will make you and other outfitters happy?
Two years ago, Outfitters took 12% of tags away from non-residents on normal animals, leaving them a measly 6%. The original 20% of tags to non-residents was more than a fair deal until the back-room government deal. As you probably know, two days before the bill was signed to get the outfitter welfare system to blackmail people to use outfitters if they want to hunt!! And on top of that landowners have pulled a ton of tags out of the draw that can be used for any season.
Don't be trying to pit us residents against non-residents. A number of us are on the same side of this issue!!! Like elk, deer, barbary, oryx tags.... outfitters are only leaving non-residents 6% of the bighorn tags as part of this latest big business land grab! Leave it up tithe people once they have tags to see if your outfitter services add any value! For bighorn an outfitter might be pretty awesome to make the most of the tag!
How many tags from DYI hunters will make you and other outfitters happy?
Two years ago, Outfitters took 12% of tags away from non-residents on normal animals, leaving them a measly 6%. The original 20% of tags to non-residents was more than a fair deal until the back-room government deal. As you probably know, two days before the bill was signed to get the outfitter welfare system to blackmail people to use outfitters if they want to hunt!! And on top of that landowners have pulled a ton of tags out of the draw that can be used for any season.
Don't be trying to pit us residents against non-residents. A number of us are on the same side of this issue!!! Like elk, deer, barbary, oryx tags.... outfitters are only leaving non-residents 6% of the bighorn tags as part of this latest big business land grab! Leave it up tithe people once they have tags to see if your outfitter services add any value! For bighorn an outfitter might be pretty awesome to make the most of the tag!
nmhuntr and slm.....why are your profiles disabled?
Don't give me any crap about deflection.....Who are you guys?
I am just trying to wake yup folks to the fact there is a sleeping giant out there. They are gonna figure this out sooner or later and there are a lot of voters in other parts of the nation.
Good luck this fall
Jim Welles
JFWRC
Live in Albuquerque, Have hunted in NM for 43 years now.
Again...."who are you".....you know, just like in the song?
Don't give me any crap about deflection.....Who are you guys?
I am just trying to wake yup folks to the fact there is a sleeping giant out there. They are gonna figure this out sooner or later and there are a lot of voters in other parts of the nation.
Good luck this fall
Jim Welles
JFWRC
Live in Albuquerque, Have hunted in NM for 43 years now.
Again...."who are you".....you know, just like in the song?
HornedToad
Active Member
- Messages
- 415
I own land in New Mexico. My family has lived in and owned land in New Mexico for over 125 years. I have worked on and contributed money to conservation projects in New Mexico. But I presently live in another state, so I am a non-resident to New Mexico.
I do not feel that my conflict is with the outfitters and their tag allocation. My conflict is with those resident hunters, many no-doubt only recent arrivals in New Mexico, with their incessant, incorrect claims to "owning" the wildlife in "their" state, and holding up such claims as a reason for reducing non-resident hunting opportunity on FEDERAL land in New Mexico to close to 0%.
For my part, I say let all New Mexico residents hunt for "their" public animals all day long on their New Mexico STATE lands. Have at it. Kill 'em all. But until reasonable access to hunt FEDERAL land in New Mexico is made available to all citizens of the United States of America, there should be no access for anyone to hunt on FEDERAL land... just like we currently do it in "our" FEDERAL National Parks.
This matter of discrimination and fairness (i.e. 85% of the tags ain't enough for us... we want 'em all) is extremely divisive, and no good for hunting support at the National level.
HT
I do not feel that my conflict is with the outfitters and their tag allocation. My conflict is with those resident hunters, many no-doubt only recent arrivals in New Mexico, with their incessant, incorrect claims to "owning" the wildlife in "their" state, and holding up such claims as a reason for reducing non-resident hunting opportunity on FEDERAL land in New Mexico to close to 0%.
For my part, I say let all New Mexico residents hunt for "their" public animals all day long on their New Mexico STATE lands. Have at it. Kill 'em all. But until reasonable access to hunt FEDERAL land in New Mexico is made available to all citizens of the United States of America, there should be no access for anyone to hunt on FEDERAL land... just like we currently do it in "our" FEDERAL National Parks.
This matter of discrimination and fairness (i.e. 85% of the tags ain't enough for us... we want 'em all) is extremely divisive, and no good for hunting support at the National level.
HT
smarba
Active Member
- Messages
- 560
HT:
I sincerely doubt that you'll find any resident who believes ALL tags in NM should go to residents only.
The vast majority of us believe ~10-20% is a reasonable amount to be set aside for NRs.
Problem is the way that NR allocation has been carved out to be mainly given to guided NRs.
And the way that deals are made last-minute without much public input or advanced warning.
Like the one cited above where things were on track for ~20% NR/80% R and all were good with it until last-minute changed to carve out the majority of NR tags for guided only.
Carl
I sincerely doubt that you'll find any resident who believes ALL tags in NM should go to residents only.
The vast majority of us believe ~10-20% is a reasonable amount to be set aside for NRs.
Problem is the way that NR allocation has been carved out to be mainly given to guided NRs.
And the way that deals are made last-minute without much public input or advanced warning.
Like the one cited above where things were on track for ~20% NR/80% R and all were good with it until last-minute changed to carve out the majority of NR tags for guided only.
Carl
LAST EDITED ON Sep-15-14 AT 10:21AM (MST)[p]JFWRC...
Yup it's me, Gilbert Villegas, born and raised in NM.
You?re a great guy Jim , doesn't mean you can't be wrong..lol
All joking aside, I am not happy with the whole situation as you can see from my posts. Post 32, by smarba really sums it up for me.
What's sad is there are several issues like this that go unseen....for example
Gila River diversion.. They want to divert water from the Gila River during monsoon or flood events... bit by bit.... give an inch and eventually they take a mile and we won't have a river in the Gila. The decision was postponed till December 2014. EMAIL YOUR Governor and voice your concerns and ideas...
http://www.hcn.org/articles/new-mexico-water-dam-diversion-gila-river
Proposed Mexican Gray Wolf Extension - I have mixed feeling about this as a biologist and as a hunter, but extending their home range to include the entire southern half of NM needs more debate. This would allow them to introduce wolves into units 18, 19, 21, 23-26, 34-37 and allow wolves to stay in the remaining southern GMU's if they moved out of their new zones. This is a hot topic, but I wouldn't be surprised if many on this thread didn't hear about it. Public comment ends Sept 23.
http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/mexicanwolf/pdf/Mexican_wolf_10(j)rev&EIS_fFAQs.pdf
(You need to copy the entire link and past it to view PDF and Map)
Like BuzzH indicated?we have to be more organized or decision will be made for us, like they have been.
Yup it's me, Gilbert Villegas, born and raised in NM.
You?re a great guy Jim , doesn't mean you can't be wrong..lol
All joking aside, I am not happy with the whole situation as you can see from my posts. Post 32, by smarba really sums it up for me.
What's sad is there are several issues like this that go unseen....for example
Gila River diversion.. They want to divert water from the Gila River during monsoon or flood events... bit by bit.... give an inch and eventually they take a mile and we won't have a river in the Gila. The decision was postponed till December 2014. EMAIL YOUR Governor and voice your concerns and ideas...
http://www.hcn.org/articles/new-mexico-water-dam-diversion-gila-river
Proposed Mexican Gray Wolf Extension - I have mixed feeling about this as a biologist and as a hunter, but extending their home range to include the entire southern half of NM needs more debate. This would allow them to introduce wolves into units 18, 19, 21, 23-26, 34-37 and allow wolves to stay in the remaining southern GMU's if they moved out of their new zones. This is a hot topic, but I wouldn't be surprised if many on this thread didn't hear about it. Public comment ends Sept 23.
http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/mexicanwolf/pdf/Mexican_wolf_10(j)rev&EIS_fFAQs.pdf
(You need to copy the entire link and past it to view PDF and Map)
Like BuzzH indicated?we have to be more organized or decision will be made for us, like they have been.
>nmhuntr and slm.....why are your profiles
>disabled?
>
>Don't give me any crap about
>deflection.....Who are you guys?
>
>I am just trying to wake
>yup folks to the fact
>there is a sleeping giant
>out there. They are gonna
>figure this out sooner or
>later and there are a
>lot of voters in other
>parts of the nation.
>
>Good luck this fall
>
>Jim Welles
>JFWRC
>Live in Albuquerque, Have hunted in
>NM for 43 years now.
>
>
>Again...."who are you".....you know, just like
>in the song?
Not sure what my back ground has to do with the question, but I was raised in Northern NM and now live in South Central NM, my name is Scott and have hunted NM my whole life.
So now it's your turn again, why should there be any outfitter tags at all?
I would assume that sense you take the federal land approach, you too are against the current tag allocations?
>disabled?
>
>Don't give me any crap about
>deflection.....Who are you guys?
>
>I am just trying to wake
>yup folks to the fact
>there is a sleeping giant
>out there. They are gonna
>figure this out sooner or
>later and there are a
>lot of voters in other
>parts of the nation.
>
>Good luck this fall
>
>Jim Welles
>JFWRC
>Live in Albuquerque, Have hunted in
>NM for 43 years now.
>
>
>Again...."who are you".....you know, just like
>in the song?
Not sure what my back ground has to do with the question, but I was raised in Northern NM and now live in South Central NM, my name is Scott and have hunted NM my whole life.
So now it's your turn again, why should there be any outfitter tags at all?
I would assume that sense you take the federal land approach, you too are against the current tag allocations?
Hello Scott-
The main reason I looked at your profile was to see whether you were worth responding to as there are folks out there that just like to take shots without having the balls to say who they are and what they really stand for.
I am going to take a risk here and go ahead and indulge your question. I am also going to assume you were not hunting when the the first legislation went into affect in the mid 90's. I hope this is an accurate assumption. You see Scott, there were a lot of hunters, mainly elk hunters that were pissed that they could not draw a Gila Elk tag. The thought presented is that it is not fair that out of state hunters are on equal ground as us and we should have a preference over them. I am going to try to make this short and simple. There was a supply and demand problem. Legislation was drafted to address the problem. It just so happened that when the legislation was drafted, an industry that was basically established based on a free market was now affected greatly by the governmental action. Hunters wanted more, the industry wanted to assure they were going to have a shot at taking clients hunting. A compromise was affected whereby the state's hunters got a lot more tags, and an industry was assured they would still get a piece of action as well. Everyone left the table thinking it was not a win-win, or a lose-lose, but an ok-ok. Bottom line if you had a business that was successful as it stood, then some form of governmental intervention came along taking away a good chunk of that business, you would fight for it as well. Whether its contracting, plumbing, whatever....you'd fight.
Life rocked along for a while.....then more folks entered the hunting world and more demand for elk hunting took place and the fight was on again. Unfortunately after the fight this time the guy who really lost was the one who didn't pick the fight in the first place. Very bad.
I fight back because enough is enough. The non residents of this country pay taxes to government agencies to manage 41% of the land in this state. Yet the state chooses to hit them again with reduced opportunity on lands they rightfully should be able to access for hunting. The state hits them with huge fees. The state takes federal monies from govt programs to support the department of game and fish that we ALL pitch in for and restricts their use. To me this is not right. Do I beleive that the people of NM own all the animals? I guess not when one chooses to cross a state line. Again, would that mean landowners own the animals because they reside in their house? Those are questions above my pay grade and certainly controversial from the get go.
Lets call a spade a spade. The residents are subsidized as well as the outfitting business in NM. Is that OK? Personally I don't think so. I'd rather go back to a system based on free market where all is up for grabs. I think residents would get to go hunting and if they would look at some of the opportunities not in demand by non-residents they could go. The argument that all western states do this is a crock. I can go Colorado tomorrow and buy an elk license over the counter. That's my opinion. To your question, Would I be ok with 80/20? Yes if it were 80 res, 10 NR, and 10 OF.
Now....enable your profile.
Jim
PS-I know I am not going to sway your opinion. Just know I'm stuck 2.
The main reason I looked at your profile was to see whether you were worth responding to as there are folks out there that just like to take shots without having the balls to say who they are and what they really stand for.
I am going to take a risk here and go ahead and indulge your question. I am also going to assume you were not hunting when the the first legislation went into affect in the mid 90's. I hope this is an accurate assumption. You see Scott, there were a lot of hunters, mainly elk hunters that were pissed that they could not draw a Gila Elk tag. The thought presented is that it is not fair that out of state hunters are on equal ground as us and we should have a preference over them. I am going to try to make this short and simple. There was a supply and demand problem. Legislation was drafted to address the problem. It just so happened that when the legislation was drafted, an industry that was basically established based on a free market was now affected greatly by the governmental action. Hunters wanted more, the industry wanted to assure they were going to have a shot at taking clients hunting. A compromise was affected whereby the state's hunters got a lot more tags, and an industry was assured they would still get a piece of action as well. Everyone left the table thinking it was not a win-win, or a lose-lose, but an ok-ok. Bottom line if you had a business that was successful as it stood, then some form of governmental intervention came along taking away a good chunk of that business, you would fight for it as well. Whether its contracting, plumbing, whatever....you'd fight.
Life rocked along for a while.....then more folks entered the hunting world and more demand for elk hunting took place and the fight was on again. Unfortunately after the fight this time the guy who really lost was the one who didn't pick the fight in the first place. Very bad.
I fight back because enough is enough. The non residents of this country pay taxes to government agencies to manage 41% of the land in this state. Yet the state chooses to hit them again with reduced opportunity on lands they rightfully should be able to access for hunting. The state hits them with huge fees. The state takes federal monies from govt programs to support the department of game and fish that we ALL pitch in for and restricts their use. To me this is not right. Do I beleive that the people of NM own all the animals? I guess not when one chooses to cross a state line. Again, would that mean landowners own the animals because they reside in their house? Those are questions above my pay grade and certainly controversial from the get go.
Lets call a spade a spade. The residents are subsidized as well as the outfitting business in NM. Is that OK? Personally I don't think so. I'd rather go back to a system based on free market where all is up for grabs. I think residents would get to go hunting and if they would look at some of the opportunities not in demand by non-residents they could go. The argument that all western states do this is a crock. I can go Colorado tomorrow and buy an elk license over the counter. That's my opinion. To your question, Would I be ok with 80/20? Yes if it were 80 res, 10 NR, and 10 OF.
Now....enable your profile.
Jim
PS-I know I am not going to sway your opinion. Just know I'm stuck 2.
Your assumptions is wrong.
It's funny you bring up supply and demand, didn't the Outfitters Council and Cattle Growers Association get behind the current allocation to take better control of supply and demand? Pretty hard for me to follow a person as yourself trying to champion for the NR when the reality is, the current allocations fits your business model pretty well, so I guess I'm calling a spade a spade.
Everyday new laws/regulation affect some form of industry, the good ones progress and change with the times, the bad ones get left or find a way to manipulate the system. Everyday you see/read in the news of someone wanting something from .Gov because they feel they are "entitled". With your logic, I still can't see how an 80/20 split goes against a free market. Wouldn't the NR you champion for have a bigger piece of the pie? Wouldn't Outfitters have a bigger pool of possible clients? Wouldn't the good ones flourish in a free market? But doesn't it really have as much to do with authorizations?
My profile is fine,but thanks for the concern.
It's funny you bring up supply and demand, didn't the Outfitters Council and Cattle Growers Association get behind the current allocation to take better control of supply and demand? Pretty hard for me to follow a person as yourself trying to champion for the NR when the reality is, the current allocations fits your business model pretty well, so I guess I'm calling a spade a spade.
Everyday new laws/regulation affect some form of industry, the good ones progress and change with the times, the bad ones get left or find a way to manipulate the system. Everyday you see/read in the news of someone wanting something from .Gov because they feel they are "entitled". With your logic, I still can't see how an 80/20 split goes against a free market. Wouldn't the NR you champion for have a bigger piece of the pie? Wouldn't Outfitters have a bigger pool of possible clients? Wouldn't the good ones flourish in a free market? But doesn't it really have as much to do with authorizations?
My profile is fine,but thanks for the concern.
Gilbert-
Thanks for reminding us about the Gila River issue and others. You are right we need our act TOGETHER.
Let's chat on the phone sometime soon. I'd love to talk to you more about what your thoughts are on these issues.
Kelly is on Stallion Nov. Larry is coming with. Your info has been awesome for her. She is all fired up.
Tell Pat hello for me and let him know we can fire these topics up all day long in the vehicles soon
You started this....are the numbers all that far off from where they were with the hunts separated?
Jimbo
PS-Your hat is my favorite!
Thanks for reminding us about the Gila River issue and others. You are right we need our act TOGETHER.
Let's chat on the phone sometime soon. I'd love to talk to you more about what your thoughts are on these issues.
Kelly is on Stallion Nov. Larry is coming with. Your info has been awesome for her. She is all fired up.
Tell Pat hello for me and let him know we can fire these topics up all day long in the vehicles soon
You started this....are the numbers all that far off from where they were with the hunts separated?
Jimbo
PS-Your hat is my favorite!
The way I see it is pretty simple. If an outfitter (I have used some, hunted on my own too) is good enough, his (hers) reputation will trump any government "change" to the system.
Bottom line, people use your service in any industry if you are a solid business-person. By that I mean you are good at what you do as well as treat people with integrity. That alone will always generate repeat business. The fact that New Mexico offers outfitter tags as a majority to non-res applicants only allows the "sub-par" outfitters to still be in business because the numbers dictate that. That alone is rather sad.
I support all hunting, which includes "good" outfitters. But, this system we have here is no different than "Chicago Politics", no matter the spin anyone chooses to put on it.
I always would rather "earn" my business than have it handed to me.....kinda like a food stamp in a backward way. Sorry to butt in!!
Bottom line, people use your service in any industry if you are a solid business-person. By that I mean you are good at what you do as well as treat people with integrity. That alone will always generate repeat business. The fact that New Mexico offers outfitter tags as a majority to non-res applicants only allows the "sub-par" outfitters to still be in business because the numbers dictate that. That alone is rather sad.
I support all hunting, which includes "good" outfitters. But, this system we have here is no different than "Chicago Politics", no matter the spin anyone chooses to put on it.
I always would rather "earn" my business than have it handed to me.....kinda like a food stamp in a backward way. Sorry to butt in!!
Jim...
I am sure we'll have plenty of time to talk about these issues. I just hope were still friends afterwards..lol.
Look forward to seeing Kelly as well.
In regarding to your Colorado reference.. Your right, you can go buy OTC tag for elk or deer, but previous to this year Colorado RESERVED ALL DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP LICENSES for RESIDENTS!!!! This year they have 1 license for non residence for the first time.
Granted they only have 13 Desert tags and NM Desert Bighorn tags were bound by the terk ruling for two years so NR's had the vast unfair majority of tags, but the point being Colorado made the right call. I may not agree with their point system, but they got this right.
I was disappointed our commission didn't even try to defend the ground we made with the terk ruling being overturned.
I understand the commission and the department have to follow the statue 84/10/6. I am all for NR opportunity, however, states that had the same problem, where units were less than 10 license most considered how many total permits were available in each hunt unit and assigns the appropriate number of permits from year to year, they didn't combine hunt codes. In Colorado's case it was reserved for Residents up till now. In addition, not to stir the pot they also don't have an outfitter allocation as well.
And? yes, if we can provide opportunity to NR?s and provide an additional 1 or 2 tags to residents it's a big deal.
Bottom line ?. My concern is that sportsmen are NOT expressing their views and ideas so LOUDER voices are being heard by the commission and rules and policies are being put in place based on those views. I made the post so sportsmen are informed, encourage sportsmen to express their concerns and to find solutions to issues like these so they represent NM's overall best interests, whether I like them or not.
I am sure we'll have plenty of time to talk about these issues. I just hope were still friends afterwards..lol.
Look forward to seeing Kelly as well.
In regarding to your Colorado reference.. Your right, you can go buy OTC tag for elk or deer, but previous to this year Colorado RESERVED ALL DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP LICENSES for RESIDENTS!!!! This year they have 1 license for non residence for the first time.
Granted they only have 13 Desert tags and NM Desert Bighorn tags were bound by the terk ruling for two years so NR's had the vast unfair majority of tags, but the point being Colorado made the right call. I may not agree with their point system, but they got this right.
I was disappointed our commission didn't even try to defend the ground we made with the terk ruling being overturned.
I understand the commission and the department have to follow the statue 84/10/6. I am all for NR opportunity, however, states that had the same problem, where units were less than 10 license most considered how many total permits were available in each hunt unit and assigns the appropriate number of permits from year to year, they didn't combine hunt codes. In Colorado's case it was reserved for Residents up till now. In addition, not to stir the pot they also don't have an outfitter allocation as well.
And? yes, if we can provide opportunity to NR?s and provide an additional 1 or 2 tags to residents it's a big deal.
Bottom line ?. My concern is that sportsmen are NOT expressing their views and ideas so LOUDER voices are being heard by the commission and rules and policies are being put in place based on those views. I made the post so sportsmen are informed, encourage sportsmen to express their concerns and to find solutions to issues like these so they represent NM's overall best interests, whether I like them or not.
cantgetdrawn
Active Member
- Messages
- 162
This is not about R vs NR. This is about a commission that is not held accountable to it mission and continues to give the impression of conflicts of interest.
The obvious solution would be a restructuring of the Game commission, but politically that is very difficult and will not happen anytime soon. It would be nice if someday we come together as BuzzH suggests, in the meantime I hope residents will write their Governor and let her know what you think of the Commissions actions.
http://www.governor.state.nm.us/Contact_the_Governor.aspx
Hornfrog, In 1996 when resident quotas were first being discussed a bill passed the Legislator that would have made it impossible for any DIY NR to hunt NM. Eighty percent of tag would have went to Residents, 17% to those who hired a guide and 3% to joint applications for Residents and NRs with the requirement that 2 of the applicants had to be residents out of a maximum of 4. It was only through threat of boycotts by national sportsman organization that the Governor vetoed the bill.
http://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/96 Regular/bills/senate/SB0193.pdf
Most residents have no problem with NRs getting some tags. Last year the commission violated the law by not granting residents the minimum 84%. This year they grouped tags in the draw but will still limit those drawn to the old units. I doubt that this would even be an issue if not for the set aside.
The obvious solution would be a restructuring of the Game commission, but politically that is very difficult and will not happen anytime soon. It would be nice if someday we come together as BuzzH suggests, in the meantime I hope residents will write their Governor and let her know what you think of the Commissions actions.
http://www.governor.state.nm.us/Contact_the_Governor.aspx
Hornfrog, In 1996 when resident quotas were first being discussed a bill passed the Legislator that would have made it impossible for any DIY NR to hunt NM. Eighty percent of tag would have went to Residents, 17% to those who hired a guide and 3% to joint applications for Residents and NRs with the requirement that 2 of the applicants had to be residents out of a maximum of 4. It was only through threat of boycotts by national sportsman organization that the Governor vetoed the bill.
http://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/96 Regular/bills/senate/SB0193.pdf
Most residents have no problem with NRs getting some tags. Last year the commission violated the law by not granting residents the minimum 84%. This year they grouped tags in the draw but will still limit those drawn to the old units. I doubt that this would even be an issue if not for the set aside.
J
jamaro
Guest
>Gilbert-
>
>Thanks for reminding us about the
>Gila River issue and others.
>You are right we need
>our act TOGETHER.
>
So let me give some background on the Gila Diversion and the Outfitters/Cattle Growers and LO...
Jim you know you aren't being completely forthcoming on this issue.
Earlier this year we hosted a forum with a Sportsman/OF/CG/Government Officials/etc in Socorro. Initially, the OF refused to be part of the group but they eventually attended... Basically all the Hunting and fishing Stake Holders.... It was a great meeting. A lot of great things came out of the meeting and we are trying to build on what we have in common.
There were several votes on issues, nothing would be released as an official stance UNLESS the votes were unanimous.
A proposal was voted on to object to the Gila Diversion.
We had complete agreement accept for the Outfitters/LO in the room.
The Inter-State Stream Commission looks like it is going to try and ram this thru. I don't know how or who will pay for the diversion but financially it just doesn't make sense...
They want us to spend over $500 million to get $136 million and then communities will still need to buy water that will be incredibly expensive.
J
>
>Thanks for reminding us about the
>Gila River issue and others.
>You are right we need
>our act TOGETHER.
>
So let me give some background on the Gila Diversion and the Outfitters/Cattle Growers and LO...
Jim you know you aren't being completely forthcoming on this issue.
Earlier this year we hosted a forum with a Sportsman/OF/CG/Government Officials/etc in Socorro. Initially, the OF refused to be part of the group but they eventually attended... Basically all the Hunting and fishing Stake Holders.... It was a great meeting. A lot of great things came out of the meeting and we are trying to build on what we have in common.
There were several votes on issues, nothing would be released as an official stance UNLESS the votes were unanimous.
A proposal was voted on to object to the Gila Diversion.
We had complete agreement accept for the Outfitters/LO in the room.
The Inter-State Stream Commission looks like it is going to try and ram this thru. I don't know how or who will pay for the diversion but financially it just doesn't make sense...
They want us to spend over $500 million to get $136 million and then communities will still need to buy water that will be incredibly expensive.
J
1FastGambler
Active Member
- Messages
- 982
>I am just trying to wake
>yup folks to the fact
>there is a sleeping giant
>out there. They are gonna
>figure this out sooner or
>later and there are a
>lot of voters in other
>parts of the nation.
>
>Good luck this fall
>
>Jim Welles
>JFWRC
>Live in Albuquerque, Have hunted in
>NM for 43 years now.
Jimbo, reading your "blurred" opinions in this thread it seems to me that you would likely be the one leading the charge for more and bigger government... big enough to take state control of wildlife away.
Better be careful what you say because you might just be speaking what you say into "OUR" future. If that were to happen do you think that all the people back east who "ALSO" own the federal land will like the way you make a living?
This thread and the topic that started it just proves how messed up we are.
Management of federal lands is one thing.
Management of game is another.
Legally speaking.
And yet you seem to think that Joe hunter in one state has an equal right to the game in another state, simply because of federal land. This thought of yours is factually incorrect.
You also commented that the NR gets screwed with the increased license fees.
Name ONE western state where resident and Non-resident fees are the same for any one big game animal.
If a state did have equal license fees it would be because that state does not have enough resident hunters to help fill quota's and manage their herds. Otherwise it makes perfect sense for all states to charge an increased fee for out of state hunters.
Why? Because Jim, the game belongs to the residents of the state. Period.
I hunt elk in CO almost every year and I pay the $600 fee without a single complaint. Why? Because it is my choice to pay and hunt or to not hunt.
Why are you making everything so difficult?
What does Jimbo's future hunting Utopia look like?
For the record, I think that lumping all these tags was a poor solution to the fiscal issue the terk resolution created.
I understand and agree that we need a fair % of our tags to go to non-residents.
Do you remember my post from a couple years ago titled "Best Possible Solution"? You even called me after reading it to say that you thought it was a great idea. It wasn't perfect, but it was a whole lot better than the way things are going lately.
By the way, going back to two archery seasons was the WORST thing G&F has done in a LONG time. What it will do is drastically reduce the drawing odds for everyone.. Res & Nonres alike.
>yup folks to the fact
>there is a sleeping giant
>out there. They are gonna
>figure this out sooner or
>later and there are a
>lot of voters in other
>parts of the nation.
>
>Good luck this fall
>
>Jim Welles
>JFWRC
>Live in Albuquerque, Have hunted in
>NM for 43 years now.
Jimbo, reading your "blurred" opinions in this thread it seems to me that you would likely be the one leading the charge for more and bigger government... big enough to take state control of wildlife away.
Better be careful what you say because you might just be speaking what you say into "OUR" future. If that were to happen do you think that all the people back east who "ALSO" own the federal land will like the way you make a living?
This thread and the topic that started it just proves how messed up we are.
Management of federal lands is one thing.
Management of game is another.
Legally speaking.
And yet you seem to think that Joe hunter in one state has an equal right to the game in another state, simply because of federal land. This thought of yours is factually incorrect.
You also commented that the NR gets screwed with the increased license fees.
Name ONE western state where resident and Non-resident fees are the same for any one big game animal.
If a state did have equal license fees it would be because that state does not have enough resident hunters to help fill quota's and manage their herds. Otherwise it makes perfect sense for all states to charge an increased fee for out of state hunters.
Why? Because Jim, the game belongs to the residents of the state. Period.
I hunt elk in CO almost every year and I pay the $600 fee without a single complaint. Why? Because it is my choice to pay and hunt or to not hunt.
Why are you making everything so difficult?
What does Jimbo's future hunting Utopia look like?
For the record, I think that lumping all these tags was a poor solution to the fiscal issue the terk resolution created.
I understand and agree that we need a fair % of our tags to go to non-residents.
Do you remember my post from a couple years ago titled "Best Possible Solution"? You even called me after reading it to say that you thought it was a great idea. It wasn't perfect, but it was a whole lot better than the way things are going lately.
By the way, going back to two archery seasons was the WORST thing G&F has done in a LONG time. What it will do is drastically reduce the drawing odds for everyone.. Res & Nonres alike.
LAST EDITED ON Sep-19-14 AT 10:15PM (MST)[p]1/3 of the Game and Fish budget comes from Federal Grant Money. Paul at Game and Fish is to provide the dollar contribution of NR money license money sometime next week. Most likely will putting the entire budget provided by the Feds and NR's well above 50% and yes I do recognize that folks in NM pay Federal Taxes as well.
I'd feel a lot different if NM residents paid a majority of the costs to manage the residents game and those costs associated with supporting all the resources on Federal Lands for their continued survival......I guess NM owns the wolves also, eh. Funny I thought USFW kinda had all the money into them. I guess we will just have to claim them now. Now isn't that just ducky.
This started out about the sheep.....and my point there was the same...huge Fed dollars support NM sheep.
I regret we all so far apart now days Sean.
Again, why does fishing get a pass on all this?
I'd feel a lot different if NM residents paid a majority of the costs to manage the residents game and those costs associated with supporting all the resources on Federal Lands for their continued survival......I guess NM owns the wolves also, eh. Funny I thought USFW kinda had all the money into them. I guess we will just have to claim them now. Now isn't that just ducky.
This started out about the sheep.....and my point there was the same...huge Fed dollars support NM sheep.
I regret we all so far apart now days Sean.
Again, why does fishing get a pass on all this?
Maybe we should think like hunters that want our kids (and their kids)to enjoy what we have. But, throw $$$$$$ at it & then we have the whole "outfitter", "landowner", "diy", "NR" push & shove. It is becoming comical in this state & almost an embarrassment.
I am a nobody. But I hold a guide license here & work for an outfitter that has enough credibility to warrant a 3 year waiting list for his services. He will never stick his neck out, but he hates this "grumbling", as he says.
Very simple to put to the commission......90% go to res on all species (elk, deer, sheep, etc.) 10% to non resident. Straight up, end of story. From there, any NR that want to hire a guide.....have your chit together as an outfitter & you will have work. As a side effect, you may have a 20% increase in residents that ask for a guide......more tags would dictate that as default.
Exactly who here does not understand that math??
I am a nobody. But I hold a guide license here & work for an outfitter that has enough credibility to warrant a 3 year waiting list for his services. He will never stick his neck out, but he hates this "grumbling", as he says.
Very simple to put to the commission......90% go to res on all species (elk, deer, sheep, etc.) 10% to non resident. Straight up, end of story. From there, any NR that want to hire a guide.....have your chit together as an outfitter & you will have work. As a side effect, you may have a 20% increase in residents that ask for a guide......more tags would dictate that as default.
Exactly who here does not understand that math??
LAST EDITED ON Sep-22-14 AT 00:16AM (MST)[p]JFWRC..
It was great to talk to you last week about the commission ruling.
It'll be interesting to see the funding breakdown. I won't be surprised if Federal and NR contributions are a significant portion of the funding, but like you said we all pay Federal taxes and I don't know if it justifies your reasoning. I don't have any data to support this, but I am sure most if not all states are in the same situation.
In regards to the wolves, IF their extension areas are approved and the population grows and can sustain hunting the State will manage them like any other animal.
ABS.....The last several posts have started to shift this to a debate over outfitter license allocations. This could be debated till the end of time and won't be resolved over MM for sure .... the 84/10/6 allocation may have been the best compromise at the time that decision was made for everyone involved OR maybe another example of louder voices prevailing.
It was great to talk to you last week about the commission ruling.
It'll be interesting to see the funding breakdown. I won't be surprised if Federal and NR contributions are a significant portion of the funding, but like you said we all pay Federal taxes and I don't know if it justifies your reasoning. I don't have any data to support this, but I am sure most if not all states are in the same situation.
In regards to the wolves, IF their extension areas are approved and the population grows and can sustain hunting the State will manage them like any other animal.
ABS.....The last several posts have started to shift this to a debate over outfitter license allocations. This could be debated till the end of time and won't be resolved over MM for sure .... the 84/10/6 allocation may have been the best compromise at the time that decision was made for everyone involved OR maybe another example of louder voices prevailing.
J
jamaro
Guest
Just to keep everyone in the look we(NMWF) filed a IPR request a when this all came out and we just got the info back... It is interesting and is leading to a lot more questions....
I will let you know as I find out more information...
J-
I will let you know as I find out more information...
J-
C
cfreak
Guest
LAST EDITED ON Oct-10-14 AT 02:47PM (MST)[p]NM GAME COMMISSION IS A BIG JOKE!!!!!what is the point of attending meetings and giving feed back to DEAF EARS???????? At the meeting in Socoro a certain man had plenty to say about the proposed elk seasons in the Gila and was of course against it and he went UN noticed!!!!! There was no real reasoning at all for the two season hunts but they were pushed through anyway! JUST BECAUSE THE COMMISSION FELT LIKE IT!!!! Sheer stupidity
cfreak,
That would have been me at the meeting, and I should know better as they never listen to me anyway. I fought very hard to keep the three season archery structure, especially in the Gila Region.
It was a crying shame as there were very few to no resident sportsmen there to stick up for anything. There were maybe 15 public's there! Totally amazing. I guess the sportsmen can't complain very darn much, or maybe their ox isn't being gored yet.
Take the expansion of the wolf program. No and I mean no regular sportsmen groups have done anything or very darn little to help us combat this issue. If it weren't for the landowners fighting this, the darn lazy ignorant sportsmen are and will be out of luck down the road.
Most regular Joe sportsmen are pathetic! Period!
You can thank one Commissioner for getting the two season structure put in place. He absolutely had no good reasoning for doing so, other than some pathetic whining about his personal experiences at some point in the past.
The Commission works on the old and tried political system of give and take. It reminds me of Santa Fe and Washington DC at their finest.
Jason, there is a very simple solution to the Water supposed Diversion. If we can only use flood water, what about moving the spillway up on Snow Lake and like the flood of 2013 we could have stored two years worth of the 14,000 acre feet NM is trying to use or lose. this would allow a slow release of water down the Middle Fork of the Gila all summer long and keep the fish and other critters (environmentalists) happy!
That would have been me at the meeting, and I should know better as they never listen to me anyway. I fought very hard to keep the three season archery structure, especially in the Gila Region.
It was a crying shame as there were very few to no resident sportsmen there to stick up for anything. There were maybe 15 public's there! Totally amazing. I guess the sportsmen can't complain very darn much, or maybe their ox isn't being gored yet.
Take the expansion of the wolf program. No and I mean no regular sportsmen groups have done anything or very darn little to help us combat this issue. If it weren't for the landowners fighting this, the darn lazy ignorant sportsmen are and will be out of luck down the road.
Most regular Joe sportsmen are pathetic! Period!
You can thank one Commissioner for getting the two season structure put in place. He absolutely had no good reasoning for doing so, other than some pathetic whining about his personal experiences at some point in the past.
The Commission works on the old and tried political system of give and take. It reminds me of Santa Fe and Washington DC at their finest.
Jason, there is a very simple solution to the Water supposed Diversion. If we can only use flood water, what about moving the spillway up on Snow Lake and like the flood of 2013 we could have stored two years worth of the 14,000 acre feet NM is trying to use or lose. this would allow a slow release of water down the Middle Fork of the Gila all summer long and keep the fish and other critters (environmentalists) happy!
That's exactly my point! We are always reacting!
I've attend commission and several town meetings when they're down south and it feels like the same people show up for the most part. One reason there is such a low turn out is the meetings are in the middle of the week and they last all day. .Plus, the fact that most NM sportsmens just are not connected for whatever reason and don't get engaged until till its too late. I bet if they moved the meeting to the weekend the turn out wouldn't be much better.
Hunters still have the opportunity to comment on NMDGF Website under the commission tab/proposal under consider page if they can't make the meeting.
In regards to the Gila river diversion, it's a bad idea. We dont even own the water rights. It belongs to the Gila River Indian Community. They have been trying to divert the last free flowing river in the southwest since the 70's. So not only will the tax payers have to pay hundreds of millions of dollars we'll have to pay AZ for the water to boot. I believe there are cheaper and environment friendly options available.
The bigger picture is the devastating changes to the natural riparian areas that were created by the rivers over flow that support over a hand full of state threatened species and many other species the habitat supports which affect hunting and fishing as well. I spoke with several biologist with BLM and from what I understand they oppose the diversion.
Whatever your view it should be expressed to the interstate stream commission and your elected officials.
I've attend commission and several town meetings when they're down south and it feels like the same people show up for the most part. One reason there is such a low turn out is the meetings are in the middle of the week and they last all day. .Plus, the fact that most NM sportsmens just are not connected for whatever reason and don't get engaged until till its too late. I bet if they moved the meeting to the weekend the turn out wouldn't be much better.
Hunters still have the opportunity to comment on NMDGF Website under the commission tab/proposal under consider page if they can't make the meeting.
In regards to the Gila river diversion, it's a bad idea. We dont even own the water rights. It belongs to the Gila River Indian Community. They have been trying to divert the last free flowing river in the southwest since the 70's. So not only will the tax payers have to pay hundreds of millions of dollars we'll have to pay AZ for the water to boot. I believe there are cheaper and environment friendly options available.
The bigger picture is the devastating changes to the natural riparian areas that were created by the rivers over flow that support over a hand full of state threatened species and many other species the habitat supports which affect hunting and fishing as well. I spoke with several biologist with BLM and from what I understand they oppose the diversion.
Whatever your view it should be expressed to the interstate stream commission and your elected officials.
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.