IS IT LEGAL FOR NM TO KEEP GAME LICENSE $

[JFWRC]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-28-19 AT 09:44PM (MST)[p]In 2011, NM Governor Martinez signed SB196 into law. This was the quota bill. At that time, the Governor made it clear that she would not sign the bill if the Game License and particular Species License applied for money was not refunded to unsuccessful applicants. The caption below is right out of the final bill.

"17-3-16. FUNDS--SPECIAL DRAWINGS FOR LICENSES.--
A. The director of the department of game and fish
may provide special envelopes and application blanks when a
special drawing is to be held to determine the persons to
receive licenses. Money required to be submitted with these
applications, if enclosed in the special envelopes, need not
be deposited with the state treasurer but may be held by the
director until the successful applicants are determined. At that time, the fees of the successful applicants shall be
deposited with the state treasurer and the fees submitted by
the unsuccessful applicants shall be returned to them.

In November, the NM Game Commission voted to rescind the refund of the Game License and is also now keeping the Habitiat and Access Management Fee. Does the Game Commission have the authority to do exceed the scope of the statute?

Below you will find letters from the New Mexico Legislative Council Service and Representative Bill Rheme to the AG that I believe you will find interesting.

Is the NM Dept of Game and Fish breaking the law by keeping the Game License Money and the HMAS Money??

 

[Katoom]

As written it would seem that fees related to an unsuccessful application (which could -but may not - be interpreted to include mandatory licence required to apply) must be refunded. So it will be interesting to see how this plays out. But don't get too wrapped up in this year's outcome. It is likely that no matter the outcome of this opinion, a revised statute will be quickly written to make it clear that refunds for the game licence do not need to be given. Just the reality nowadays, and the letter of the law will ultimately catch up to be in favor of the State each and every time.

 

[RoughCountry]

Keeping the license money makes it easier for this administration to support all the illegal immigration they are supporting..... Food, housing, trans potion and health care is very expensive.

 

[Buffs35]

I thought it was just Colorado going to hell in a handbasket. Good to know we have company.

 

[JFWRC]

Please recall the original INTENT of the signing by the THEN governor. Opening the statute to change it would be a disaster.

With all due respect, the money is damn sure not being used to support immigration and should not be.

Just a question, what do you receive for your $ in Colorado?

Just a question, if this legal, why did NM just start doing it now and not back in 2011 when the bill was written?

 

[SLM]

While none of us like extra fees, we were losing out on Pitman Robertson monies to the surrounding states that were/are requiring the purchase of a game lic.

Seeing the number of applicants this year it doesn't appear it was a show stopper to most.

 

[JFWRC]

So if it iss illegal?, it makes it OK to TAKE or dare I say STEAL the money to raise revenue via Pittman Robert? Sounds vaguely familiar to an old movie I once watched called Robin Hood.

 

[RoughCountry]

Bufs35 NM is trying to be just like CO . Now run by ultra liberals . Hate to see it. Another California in the Rockies....

 

[Muleman]

Yeah I don't see where this illegal. I see why they are doing it, the more licenses sold the more money each state get from PR act. Other states have been doing this for a long time, I have to 175 no refundable license to apply for AZ. $60 non refundable license fee for non-residents is hardly an amount to get all worked up about.

One govern said they couldn't do it and the new one said they could think that's all it boils down to. Don't see this as a crazy liberal issue although they are in charge!!

 

[TLowell02]

>While none of us like extra
>fees, we were losing out
>on Pitman Robertson monies to
>the surrounding states that were/are
>requiring the purchase of a
>game lic.
>
>Seeing the number of applicants this
>year it doesn't appear
>it was a show stopper
>to most.

Where have you seen the number of applicants? I didn't think the draw stats had been released yet.

 

[Guardrail]

More than 209,000 applicants tried for about 61,000 deer, elk, antelope, oryx, ibex, Barbary sheep and javelina licenses -- an all-time application record.

 

[Buffs35]

>Bufs35 NM is trying to be
>just like CO . Now
>run by ultra liberals .
>Hate to see it. Another
>California in the Rockies....


Yep, tried convincing my wife to move back to Cheye-vegas. But i only get 49% of the vote.

I miss Wyoming daily.

 

[Buffs35]

>Please recall the original INTENT of
>the signing by the THEN
>governor. Opening the statute to
>change it would be a
>disaster.
>
>With all due respect, the money
>is damn sure not being
>used to support immigration and
>should not be.
>
>Just a question, what do you
>receive for your $ in
>Colorado?
>
>Just a question, if this legal,
>why did NM just start
>doing it now and not
>back in 2011 when the
>bill was written?
We get a game and fish that thinks every outdoorsman is breaking the law, rather than developing a program to help hunters and game.

And a changing population that is anti hunting and anti oil and gas development, and yet they drive their SUVs to whole foods to buy over priced lamb shipped from New Zealand or other "organic" game meat, and spend their weekeds driving 4 hours to ski on plastic skis while posting pictures on their iPhones.

Fun times.

 

[Katoom]

Someday, increased costs will negatively affect application numbers....... BUT... NOT.... THIS.... DAY!

 

[SLM]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-29-19 AT 07:53PM (MST)[p]>So if it iss illegal?, it
>makes it OK to TAKE
>or dare I say STEAL
>the money to raise revenue
>via Pittman Robert? Sounds vaguely
>familiar to an old movie
>I once watched called Robin
>Hood.


I'm sure a determination will be made on the legality of charging for a lic. My guess is it was cleared through legal before implementing.

What exactly is your issue with it? I assume you have the same issue with the commission creating special ?hunt codes? for BH and a few other hunts after the bill was passed and signed? The INTENT is pretty clear in the bill.

Who would it be disastrous towards opening the statue to change?

 

[JFWRC]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-29-19 AT 09:34PM (MST)[p]17-3-16. FUNDS--SPECIAL DRAWINGS FOR LICENSES.--
A. The director of the department of game and fish
may provide special envelopes and application blanks when a
special drawing is to be held to determine the persons to
receive licenses. Money required to be submitted with these
applications, if enclosed in the special envelopes, need not
be deposited with the state treasurer but may be held by the
director until the successful applicants are determined. At that time, the fees of the successful applicants shall be
deposited with the state treasurer and the fees submitted by
the unsuccessful applicants shall be returned to them.

SLM-

Please read the statute's last sentence. What my issue has to do with is RIGHT and WRONG. To me, the statute is clear. But that's my opinion only.

What does fees mean? If someone says the app fees, then we get to go back to 2012 and refund fees?

With regard to your assertion about the commission/dept doing its homework, please read the NOV 30 commission minutes, then ask yourself. When I questioned the department about the above statute, the reply came that they relying on the statute whereby the director can refund after notification of military deployment, terminal illness type emergencies, natural disaster like a forest fire, etc....nothing to do with the special draw as posted above. Not sure if you read the Legislative Councils' attorney letter, but it says "SHALL BE REFUNDED". The issue is not clear in his letter, that is why they referred it to the AG.

If there is something wrong with the BH deal, lets get it fixed. Aren't folks are looking into that now?

Anytime you open a Statute, new fights ensue. I am not looking for a fight. I am looking to obtain an opinion on legal and illegal.

The fact other states do it does not hold water with me in terms of right and wrong, legal or illegal. Other states are not relying on the wrong statute for saying its ok. I have no idea whether they are legal, if they give bonus points, fishing licenses, etc.....

If in fact this was done as a means to obtain more Pittman Robertson Act money, even worse, and if its illegal, this action sets the state up for someone to file suit.

If this has been legal all these years, then why were we leaving all the money on the table?

I just hope our state gets it right.....that's all.

 

[Lonepine]

In short I think it is legal. I think we're comparing apples to oranges here.

The statute referenced, 17.3.16, is specifically for special drawings...i.e. big game tags, the big game drawing. The refund is for the cost of the tag we must front to apply. The fee for the big game tag is refunded in the event one doesn't draw.

This statute has nothing to do with the purchase of a hunting license. A hunting license is not a special draw event, therefore this statute is NA.

It is purely up to the director and commission to choose if they want to make purchasing a hunting license a prerequisite to enter the special drawing for big game tags which they did. Once a hunting license is purchased res and nonres alike are free to use this license regardless of the outcome of the special drawing.

I don't see any issue regarding the legality of requiring a hunting license purchase prior to applying for tags. Secondly I can't understand why you're making such a big deal about it.

IMO, it's long past due for NM to go this route. For the longest time you could get everyone you knew in the game without any skin in the game. Now everyone has to pay to play...at least a few dollars.

The state benefits, game department and ultimately the wildlife and hunters that hunt NM.

What's the downside Jim? I dont get it??

 

[Lonepine]

Why have we been leaving all this $ on the table?

Now that's a great question. As you've probably noticed NM is a little slow on the uptake. Whether it's education, the economy or social policy we lag well behind our peers. Hunting is no different.

As other western states have gotten creative with maximizing revenue from drawings we probably got a bit complacent. Not all a bad thing but we're catching up and making some moves in the right direction.

Tags aren't a commodity. They're much like other luxury items that rise and fall with the overall economy. This last draw during a great economy reflects that. Buying a non ref license did not in fact scare everyone off.

The trick is designing such a system that will still generate high revenue during low economic periods. As there are no points in NM to sucker folks in for the long game, a modest non refundable license fee seems to be a smart play in the event of a downturn.

 

[SLM]

JFWRC, Like the post above, I read it as refund of the application amount.

This seems to be an odd hill to fight and die on, especially when the numbers show it had no apparent effect on the number of applicants. In fact it was a record year as I understand.

My guess is this is just part of a bigger concern/fear relating to the hunting industry.

 

[BigChiefJ]

As for the affect on applications:

Was it the number of people that increased? or

Was it a smaller number of people that simply added more species resulting in more applications?

 

[JFWRC]

SLM-

You do not need guess. I, along with others were there when Governor Martinez would not sign SB 196 without a refund of the Game License $ as part of the deal. Ergo, the INTENT.

It will be interesting to see if she, or her then cabinet get questioned by the AG as to INTENT.

Change administrations, change politics, look at statute in a new way.....yep that is why there are lawyers and judges.

 

[Lonepine]

My guess is the only reason you're so interested in this is because it effects your bottom line.

When I refer to tags being a luxury item I'm talking about the 16% of tags that fall into the NR/outfitter allocation.

In your case we're talking about the 10%. Any increase in fees, in this case requiring purchase of a general hunting license prior to applying for the draw might decrease the overall number of people who apply with you. It's purely a numbers game. The more individuals/apps you can get in the draw the better odds you have of people pulling a hunt and therefore more $ in your pocket. Any barrier to entry for you for getting folks in the outfitter pool is a negative.

I would encourage you to take a step back and see how the increase in revenue benefits the dept. Game departments dont run on goodwill and handouts. How did that work out for Valle Caldera?

I've followed this forum occasionally over the last decade and haven't felt inclined to post until your suggestion on a public forum that folks should sue the dept over purchase of a game license. It's a ridiculous assertion.

As if the dept doesn't have enough enemies fighting lawsuits of anti-hunters, wolf lovers, anti-trapping groups etc. In an overly litigious, sue happy society a respected outfitter suggests suing the dept over hunting license purchase prior to getting in the special draw??

Maybe you had fewer folks use your application service this year, maybe bad luck in the draw...I don't know. But take a step back from your own self interest to see how this benefits the dept and hunting in general bf biting the hand that feeds you.

 

[JFWRC]

Lonepine-Thank you for making this personal. I could care less if it WAS the INTENT to keep the money back in 2011. Were you there?

This is an ambiguous money grab. IT IS NOT CLEAR. Read the Legislative Councils last paragraph on page 2. Define FEE for me Lonepine. Is it the $8 or the $13. If so, all those $'s need to be refunded back to 2012. See how much that costs the state.

I started this back in January by writing to the Chairmen. I followed up with the dept then as well. I was concerned that they might be stepping in a pile of #####. When I got the BS back about the refund to military and terminal ill folks I knew they did not look at the the original statute and there was something else afoot here. Wehn they decided to keep the money, I felt it was time to get this out to folks that care. Obviously you do not.

Bottom line Lonepine, the AG will have to make a determination. At that point they can decide how to fix it if it needs fixed.

Thanks Brain for allowing this post. I will not be back on this one.

 

[Iowan]

As a non-resident I understand why they are requiring us to buy the hunting license and frankly we should do our part to help support the wildlife even on years when we do not draw a tag. I want there to be the best possible hunting when I do draw tags and this is one small way to make sure this happens. $65 for the license (one box of premium ammo, half a tank of gas for me, etc.). I agree with Jim that the law should match their actions but I say require the $65 license - it sure is not deterring applications. Just my 6,500 cents worth!

 

[Gator]

Do any of you think they will stop if they can get away with a little money grab. Heck if they would just add a $5 bill to each specie that you try to draw to all the resident draws then bump the license fee $10 they could bump up their salary a bunch.

IF IT's WRONG then it is wrong there isn't a gray area where maybe,I can dip into your pocket, but I'm only taking your pocket change so it ok so I'm not stealing. Because once you run out of pocket change they will be looking at your wallet and then checkbook.

"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>the MM green signature club.[font/]

 

[SLM]

JFWRC, like I mentioned before, this seems like a very odd hill to fight/die on. It is pretty apperant by the number of applicants that most don't share the same anxiety as you.

As you say, the INTENT of Martinez is irrelevant, it's the interpretation of the wording in the statute that matters.

Out of curiosity, have you asked for a ruling on the BH hunt codes as well? That to me is clearly against the INTENT of the bill. My gut tells me if this does blow up it's not going to have the affect you were hoping for.