Great Western,
NMWF is strongly opposed to doing away with the Game Commission and absorbing the Department into EMNRD. We have a fairly longstanding problem of the Commission not listening to the voice of average sportsmen, but doing away with the commission would take our voice away completely. It would also further politicize the agency. Lastly it would mix sportsmen dollars in with general fund money. All bad ideas across the board. We put a report out that basically says problems can be fixed by just running the commission like it is supposed to be run, get the pay-to-play out, honor the sportsmen seats, etc.
The quota should be applied to oryx, ibex and bighorn...if that is what you are asking.
The big bad wolf...you can look up my old post where I went into this in detail. But in short the North American Model should be applied and a hunting season held and state management (including hunts) upon hitting the recovery goal. If you want another long and emotional discussion about the 10 wolves or so in NM, have at it, but please keep me out of it. It is an issue decided at the federal level.
On the economic impact of more licenses going to residents: there will not be a reduction in the number of hunters in the field. Sporting goods stores are over 95 percent dependent on resident hunters, so they would be better off with more residents hunting. Non-resident hunters simply do not come here and buy guns, bows, ammo etc. A lot of shops are struggling from the steady reduction in resident opportunity we have been seeing. For a gas station or motel in Reserve or Grants, a resident of albuquerque pays the same rates as a resident of Amarillo, but residents spend more days in the field, scouting etc. In terms of outfitters...the NMCOG put out a report in 2003 that says they had 20,504 clients a year. The draw permits from the 12 percent set-aside that year were a little over 2,000. So according to the NM Council of Outfitters and Guides, the 12 percent mandate makes up about 11 percent of clients. Most outfitter business comes from clients who choose to hire them, not those who have to hire them through the set-aside. Also keep in mind that we are including the unknown percentage of hunters who are just paying an outfitter for better odds to get into the 12 percent pool. It is impossible to track how many are just paying an outfitter for better odds. I tried to ask this question of Jim, but my phrasing was not very clear, so I will not quote his answer. Also, the percentage of licenses being used by non-residents mandated to hire an outfitter has not gone above four percent in at least the last four years.
In terms of your ideas about compromise, keep in mind those have all so far been rejected by the Council of Outfitters and Guides. When Senator Munoz ran that online survey which was taken by over 1,700 people (resident and non-resident), the largest area of agreement was that the 12 percent set-aside is not fair. People want to be able to have the option to hire an outfitter or not based on services. If NMCOG is going to fight any change no matter what, why should NMWF try to preserve a highly unpopular subsidy program that makes up a tiny portion of outfitter business? We've asked NMCOG to bring forth compromise ideas in writing and have gotten nothing.
As far as Game and Fish, the bill going to a 90 percent quota actually increases revenue for the Department. You may already know that.
NMPaul,
The bill increases revenue for Game and Fish by creating a general "game license" like Arizona, Utah and other states have, but it is cheaper than those states. Pretty simple and good solution that also brings in more federal revenue from the Pittman-Robertson funds that are based partially on how many "licensees" a state has. As I'm sure you probably know the PR funding is from the dedicated tax we pay on guns and ammo, that goes to support conservation.
As far as NWF, the closest regional office is in Colorado, most of the folks who work there hunt. And they have helped us on some things like with legal assistance on getting the White's Peak land trade reversed. The trade lost thousands of acres for the public, lost a lot of quality, and shifted over 40 elk licenses away from the draw. NWF's help was key in turning that around. We are separate organizations as I explained above, we can choose whether or not to affiliate as you point out. I could go on...but if you have specific concerns I am happy to bring them forth. Stop by the office any time. 121 Cardenas NE, Albuquerque or call 299-5404.
Totally agree with you on not enough wardens in the field. Richardson wrongly applied an across the board hiring freeze to the department, even though our money is separate and it did nothing to help the general fund. Martinez promised during the campaign to restore those positions. NMWF and other sportsmen groups have written asking for this to happen. The quota bill for the reasons explained above, is revenue-positive.
Lastly, one thing I forgot to say about my hunting experience earlier in response to the questions. Something I've done the last few years is try to introduce at least one new person to hunting each year. For instance in the last few years I've helped four people get their first elk.
Hunting and fishing and getting outdoors (but primarily hunting) has enriched my life and I'm really lucky to be able to work on ensuring that our great american tradition of public ownership of wildlife and hunting for the average person can continue. I also only buy beef, pork etc for special occasions. I grew up on wild game and my girls are too.
If anyone on here who reads this has any questions, feel free to call the office or stop by any time. The main goal of NMWF is to give average sportsmen a voice for themselves in issues affecting the future of hunting and fishing in NM. We don't try to go behind closed doors and make deals for sportsmen, we ask for the doors to be thrown open and public comment taken seriously. Everyone should share their opinions with their senators and reps on this issue and where you personally stand on going to a 90 percent resident quota. It does not go as far as some states like Oregon (with a 95 percent quota on deer and elk and 97 percent on antelope and black bear) but 90 percent is a widely used quota. And the current law gives residents worse odds than non-residents in over two-thirds of hunt codes, that needs to change.
Jeremy
