Q's For SFW New Mexico

nmelktrout

nmelktrout

Very Active Member
Messages
1,152
Dusty/30inch, I appreciate your offer to answer questions I have that are specific to the New Mexico chapter of SFW. Here are my questions:

Will you and the New Mexico Chapter of Sportsmen for Wildlife publicly vow to never ask for raffle or auction tags for funding? Why or why not?

Will the NM chapter of SFW agree to proceed allowing public inspection of its financial statements and will SFW NM agree to do continue to do so? Why or why not?

Will you work to get the Jennings law overturned? Why or why not?

What is SFW NM?s stance on landowner tags? Will you ever work to make all landowner tags ranch only?

The NRA recently issued a press release stating the following: ?Congressional offices and members of the media should exercise caution in accepting as fact, or repeating, any claims made by Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, Big Game Forever or any person claiming to represent them. Due to the blatant misrepresentation contained in the press release circulated by these two groups, any claims they make in the future should be thoroughly investigated and independently confirmed.? Why should we trust you, the New Mexico chapter in light of such a strong statement from the NRA?

Thanks in advance,

Cody Lujan
 
One easy way to tell is to look at the NMG&F commission members. Has NMSFW tried to get any plants on there? Or have they gotten cozy with any senators or reps. These are two areas where the SFW model infiltrates prior to a tag grab. Also, they will have had to have been in operation for 5 years to meet their model for a "qualifying organization". How long have they been around?

In AZ the husband of SFW's lobbyist serves on the board of the game commission approval comittee. That is how they do things. It's not hard to connect the dots.

Another telltale sign is do thay actually fund projects, or is their primary business recruiting members and funding lobbyists. Their form 990's will tell you that.

***********************************
Member RMEF, UBNM, UWC & the SFW Hate Club
 
They (SFW) won't have to ask! The 84/6/10 split is going to leave NMDFG so far in the red they will be begging those SFW'ers to drum up some revenue! SUCKS!
JMHO.
 
30", not to be a smart ass, but if SFW has hundreds of supporters for every "Internet cruiser" that does not like SFW where are they? You would think at least a few of them would be here to help you defend your organization's stance on things. Really looking forward to the answers to the above questions.
 
Loaded questions, but here you go.

Auction/Raffle tags ? currently we do not have the resources to do a better job of getting the maximum benefit to the NMG&F than is currently being done by RMEF, FNAWS and MDF. However, is it possible that in the future when we have the resources, we would put a bid in for the current tags, if it is determined we could raise more money for the department. I have stated many times on the laws of the state, by law 90% goes directly to NMG&F for projects. There are many examples of how this has been a successful program. I have stated many times that I will be against any attempt to increase the number of auction/raffle tags.

Financials - public ? I would say no (too many anti?s), members in good standing ? yes, I have seen them on many occasions along with other members, they have been shown and discussed at several of our monthly meetings. However being a non-profit, tax returns are public record.

Jennings law ? yes it needs to be changed.

LO tags ? As stated the current system needs work, Do they provide opportunities for NM sportsman that otherwise not be there ? yes they do. There is some landlocked parcels that without LO tags access would be eliminated, some LO do great work in providing improvements to habitat and thus I think that they should be rewarded in doing so. So between added access and habitat improvements it gives the good LO incentive to continue these practices. RO tags in some instances would be a waste, during legal hunting hours there are no elk on those properties. UW tags also increases access in many cases. So while it is abused by some in instances, it is a direct benefit to all sportsman in NM. To come out and do a across the board RO would do more harm for sportsman and wildlife.

NRA ? All I can say is that it is bad for all sportsman to sling mud against one another on this subject. Both sides have slung mud, it has not been one sided and I am not sure why? Politics? Membership? Fund Raising?

As far as trusting SFW-NM? It is up to the individual. Actions do speak louder than words. There has been nothing in NM that has adversely affects the NM sportsman. While there are some disagreements on some issues, we have drawn from a general consensus what is good for all of NM sportsman.










Outside of a horse is good for the inside of a man.
 
SLM,

most have better things to do, than visit forums daily.


I know on weekends, I dont even turn a PC on.



Outside of a horse is good for the inside of a man.
 
>Financials - public ? I would
>say no (too many anti?s),
>members in good standing ?
>yes, I have seen them
>on many occasions along with
>other members, they have been
>shown and discussed at several
>of our monthly meetings. However
>being a non-profit, tax returns
>are public record.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

The only reason to exercise your right to hide this information from the the "anti's" would be because you actually have something to hide.

______________________________________
>Jennings law ? yes it needs
>to be changed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Darn skippy it does!! We all agree on this critical issue!!!


_________________________________________________________________
>LO tags ? As stated the
>current system needs work, Do
>they provide opportunities for NM
>sportsman that otherwise not be
>there ? yes they do.
>There is some landlocked parcels
>that without LO tags access
>would be eliminated, some LO
>do great work in providing
>improvements to habitat and thus
>I think that they should
>be rewarded in doing so.
>So between added access and
>habitat improvements it gives the
>good LO incentive to continue
>these practices. RO tags in
>some instances would be a
>waste, during legal hunting hours
>there are no elk on
>those properties. UW tags also
>increases access in many cases.
>So while it is abused
>by some in instances, it
>is a direct benefit to
>all sportsman in NM. To
>come out and do a
>across the board RO would
>do more harm for sportsman
>and wildlife.
----------------------------------------------------------------

The LO tag program is extremely complex. I think that is why it's so jacked up. Look at the federal tax laws... the more complex, the more jacked up it gets. That's what happened with LO tags.

The entire system needs to be redesigned... AFTER THE JENNINGS RULE IS FIXED. Not before.

_________________________________________________________________
>NRA ? All I can say
>is that it is bad
>for all sportsman to sling
>mud against one another on
>this subject. Both sides have
>slung mud, it has not
>been one sided and I
>am not sure why? Politics?
>Membership? Fund Raising?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
How, when, where, did the NRA and or the SCI "sling mud"? Their letter was in defense of what SFW did. The NRA-ILA has always shared with their membership the things that some groups do that is "shady". Whenever PETA, Earth Guardians, etc. do something stupid, the NRA-ILA sends out a memo to it's membership.
That's all that happened here and yet you are trying to tell us that the SFW & NRA are on a level (muddy) playing field.

I strongly disagree with you on this one.
_________________________________________________________________

>As far as trusting SFW-NM? It
>is up to the individual.
>Actions do speak louder than
>words.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Correct.

_________________________________________________________________
There has been nothing
>in NM that has adversely
>affects the NM sportsman. While
>there are some disagreements on
>some issues, we have drawn
>from a general consensus what
>is good for all of
>NM sportsman.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

In your mystical fleece fantasy world this might be beleivable, but like you said above... Actions speak louder than words.

SFW-NM chose to take sides with the Outfitters and Landowners on SB196. I'm sure they agree that SFW is a great organization.

Q/HD rule - you screwed us on this one, not doubt about it.

Just don't claim that SFW-NM is FOR the "common joe's" as you stated before. If you want to make that claim again you'll need to back it up with something legitimate that you've done that actually benefits the "common joe".
 
Thanks for responding Dusty. First off, these are not ?loaded questions?, they are direct questions. I was hoping to get some hard and candid responses to the questions regarding tags and financial statements. Instead, the responses you provided to these were deflective and lead me to believe that when SFW NM has allocated enough resources in the State of New Mexico it will compete with the marquee conservation groups for raffle and auction tags. You and I also both know that State laws can be repealed or amended. As such, I have no doubt that SFW will also lobby to have the 90% allocation changed when it has the resources and will do so under the guise of ?benefitting NMG&F projects.? The problem with this model is that SFW has a proven track record of providing less funds to conservation than it claims AND it does so by removing more and more tags from a truly public forum/lottery. I know that you stated that you would be against any increase in the number of auction/raffle tags, but I find it concerning that after claiming the NM chapter has only a de minimus connection with the UT Chapter, there is no public vow by SFW NM NOT to ask for public tags for funding. Sadly, and with the spin SFW put on it, the average joe hunter does not realize that their odds of obtaining a tag decrease, while the amount of money they pay for the decreased opportunity INCREASES?

Your response to whether SFW NM would allow public inspection of its financial records as a nonprofit group is essentially the same canned response other SFW groups have given? i.e., we are trustworthy because we are registered as a non profit group, however we will still not allow transparency with regard to exactly how we spend our money. I personally have a hard time believing in any organization that continues to claim to work for the benefit of the public, yet refuses public access to its records as you are effectively doing here. Furthermore, I find it troubling that any corporation or organization doing any business in NM, especially SFW of NM, INC., would be listed as a corporation that is ?not in Good Standing? with the NM Public Regulation Commission (You guys likely forgot to file your annual report and will be able to reinstate fairly easily).

Landowner tags question response. Definitely sitting the fence on this one as I know you dare not take a stance that would openly alienate outfitters and landowners.

The NRA and SCI did not in fact sling mud. In fact, they have distanced themselves from SFW due to the group?s history of spreading misinformation and misrepresenting the stances taken by other groups that represent sportsmen AND conservation.

Again, and although we clearly disagree, I thank you for taking the time to respond to my questions. Your responses have made it clear in my mind as to what SFW?s long-term objectives are in New Mexico. I leave it up to the individual to take what they can from these questions and responses as I think a public dialogue will only educate hunters for the better.

-Cody Lujan
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-17-12 AT 01:12AM (MST)[p]

"if" a 503c non profit, SFWNM is required by federal law to present their form 990 to anyone who asks, at the non profits principal place of business, anytime, regardless of whether you are an "anti" or not.
 
Cody,


Yes they where loaded,

Which I meant you had the answers in your head as you posted the ?'s. It would have not mattered how I answered. You had the answers in your head already.


Just like Sean's.


I get it you believe what you have read on a forum. Never have you looked at any FACTS of how it went down. Probably never will.


Sean's upset over the Q/HD, I get it. Sean there was many more guys that did not like the rule.






Outside of a horse is good for the inside of a man.
 
refresh my memory, are you guys quibbling over the proposal to require a guy to apply for a "S" hunt if they drew Q/HD the year prior?
 
"LO tags ? As stated the current system needs work, Do they provide opportunities for NM sportsman that otherwise not be there ? yes they do. There is some landlocked parcels that without LO tags access would be eliminated, some LO do great work in providing improvements to habitat and thus I think that they should be rewarded in doing so. So between added access and habitat improvements it gives the good LO incentive to continue these practices. RO tags in some instances would be a waste, during legal hunting hours there are no elk on those properties. UW tags also increases access in many cases. So while it is abused by some in instances, it is a direct benefit to all sportsman in NM. To come out and do a across the board RO would do more harm for sportsman and wildlife."


That is proven wrong in many other states. If you get tags for your ranch, you will provide resources (food/water/habitat) for the animals you have tags for and control hunting pressure to keep them on your property or you won't be filling/selling any of those tags. I think it may work the opposite of what your purport. You make all the landowner tags RO, they will have more incentive to provide more and better habitat on their own property instead of just selling more tags on public land which a lot are doing now.
 
1. RO tags in some instances would be a waste, during legal hunting hours there are no elk on those properties.

Question: It seems like SFW supports LO tag abuse. Would you/sfw support UW bull tags for this case?

2. AZ is not in any way shape or form connected to SFW UT or SFW NM.

Question: Does SFW thing it is good to distance itself from UT and AZ outside of the wolf issue?

3 "As long as we fight against them - nothing is accomplished."
The problem with this statement is that it was directed toward LO/OFs and not towards Joes Sportsmen. That paradigm permeates SFW. NMSFW seems to have the mentality that ?as long as ?big business? ?approves? what we do, we can go along ways. We need to dialogue and come to compromise and that requires fights that even land in the roundhouse. Money/special interest groups wreak havoc on this nation. You are slick at selling your agenda but here I suggest you change it to be more politically correct like "as long as we both arent willing to compromise, nothing is accomplished".

4. ?We came out against SB196 from the get go?

You realize because some us fought interest groups like yours, NM families have more tags?

5.?We see the benifit of working with the oufitters and the land owners. Both groups have bad and good, JUST LIKE US hunters.?

Did?nt you tell me your family has a ranch and if I remember right you have been involved with guiding too?

6. No quote, just a question. Is there documentation or witnesses on whether or not SFW supported "big business" groups on the sb196 compromise struck of taking the majority of NR tags out of the main NR pool and putting them in a "OF pool"? This is a huge question I would like real feedback on. I do not believe your org is all bad. I like the wolf thing and habitat enhancement is not bad. Its just that many know that if SFW were not here, "nm sportsmen" would not suffer loss. I hate to see you caught in the thick of it between your superiors and "us". I think your a decent guy with a conflicting agenda.
 
"6. No quote, just a question. Is there documentation or witnesses on whether or not SFW supported "big business" groups on the sb196 compromise struck of taking the majority of NR tags out of the main NR pool and putting them in a "OF pool"?"

I doubt you will find any documentation since none of the "main NR pool" tags went to the outfitter pool.
 
WapitiBob,
Correct me if I am wrong but SB196 was intended to have a 16%NR pool. I believe this was rejected and the LO/OF groups "compromise" was "give us 10% of that 16". Those were the terms of acceptance, I thought?
 
>refresh my memory, are you guys
>quibbling over the proposal to
>require a guy to apply
>for a "S" hunt if
>they drew Q/HD the
>year prior?
-------------------------------------------------------------
No, it does not require you to do anything except not apply for a Q/HD of the same species if you were successful the prior year.

Yes you would have had the option to apply for a "S" type hunt if you so chose to do so.

Your old post on the topic is #16.

Admittedly I should have done a better job explaining my take on the Q/HD rule 2-1/2 years ago. Cockie2 got me fired up and rather than taking a step back, I went in swinging.

This was important to me because it was something that truly made sense and would have worked. Was it perfect? No. Nothing is, but this rule along with a few other changes would have made a huge difference. Much more so than SB196 after SFW got a hold of it.

I'm calm now and would be happy to try and explain it again in a more calm/professional/less biased way.

If we go down this road again, I ask everyone to please try and look at the big picture and not single out any specific hunt code, and I'll start a new thread rather than continue to hyjack this one.
 
Bob
refresh my memory, are you guys quibbling over the proposal to require a guy to apply for a "S" hunt if they drew Q/HD the year prior?

Yes, Sean wanted that rule. Many did not ? he keeps stating that that went against ?regular joes?

DoeNob ? It is a lot about access as well, there is many items that ?some? LO provide that would go away. Access to landlocked areas is one. Access to hunt the deeded lands that choose UW tags is another.

Bull

Question: It seems like SFW supports LO tag abuse. Would you/sfw support UW bull tags for this case?

No, want to come up with a solid plan that would get rid of the abuse of the system, however UW bull tags, sure. If the equation justified that, take into account; improved access, habitat for wildlife, total deeded area, number of tags for CORE area, signage, clear maps, habitat improvements, and others.

Question: Does SFW thing it is good to distance itself from UT and AZ outside of the wolf issue?

Just for simple fact that each state ? does what there board members and members decided upon, not do what other states do. Money raised in NM stays in NM, decisions are made in NM by NM residents, same goes for other states as well. Some guys think we take orders from UT, that is so far from the truth it is laughable.

SB196 ? did very little improving draw odds in most units for R, sure there are some extra tags that residents gained, however what is going to be lost in tourism dollars because of the fewer NR tags will be felt by the NMG&F and general revenues in the state. I know we discussed this to lengths, when you factor in the economics it was generally a bad plan in our thinking. Now with the refund being offered it will really impact the NMG&F departments budget.
Should have left it alone, so that it would have been defeated in the original form.

Did?nt you tell me your family has a ranch and if I remember right you have been involved with guiding too?

If you call a section of land east of Tatum that is now owned by a cousin of mine, that might have a rabbit and sometimes quail on it a ranch yeah that is true. Yes I have guided in the past, so yes I know some outfitters and guides. While some think that these are evil doers and don't care about NM wildlife and is just after an easy buck, well most of them care more and treat the land better than many of the slob hunters I have seen. Before I guided, I had a similar attitude towards OF?s as many of you that despise them. I do know this, there is no way I would work so hard for such meager wages. There is no way I would call most of them ?big business?, just many ?small mom and pop business?

The largest thing we did with SB196 was act as an arbitrator between the groups, and tried to somehow find a middle ground. We did succeed at that.

The real only positive thing that SB196 did get in was that out-of-state OF?s could no longer get in the OF pool without being subject to NM taxation.

Its just that many know that if SFW were not here, "nm sportsmen" would not suffer loss. I hate to see you caught in the thick of it between your superiors and "us". I think your a decent guy with a conflicting agenda.

I see SFW as a group that could get more done in the state for NM sportsman period. There is no other group that has the potential to do great things in NM for all sportsman. My beliefs are most of the time 180 degrees from what NMWF puts out. Most conservation groups won't jump into the political battles needed to be fought because of the fear of losing some members/donors.
As I have stated many times in the past ? more members = more ideas for improvements, we do take members ideas and we try and solicit ideas from members. There are some areas in the state that need more input and help and to do more in local communities. Hunter Education, NASP, fishing derbys, coyote contests, and the all important political influence.

I believe in the following that is copied from our web site.

Mission Statement
SFWNM exists to promote the protection and enhancement of wildlife habitat, assist in providing quality wildlife management programs to local and federal wildlife agencies, educate the public about the roles hunters play in wildlife conservation, and perpetuate the family traditions of hunting and fishing.







Outside of a horse is good for the inside of a man.
 
I appreciate the feedback. First, it is a fact that sb196 put literally a few thousand tags into the hands of NM families. To me and others that is a good thing. I for one am ok with paying an extra fee to offset some losses for g&f.
I think there is a misconception that the public does not like the people who OF or LOs. There are very upstanding people that I know in the business personally. I do believe when money is involved people in general tend to look the other way with ethical dilimas. Unit 15 is imo a prime example of Q taking a beating in the name of LO tags/money. 6C,34 to name just a few more.

"I see SFW as a group that could get more done in the state for NM sportsman period"

knowing that if SFW had there way, NM sportsmen would have a few thousand less tags for there families is why I totally disagree. That is a fact that u cannot deny.

Did SFW play a part in cutting down 17% ALL NRS to 6% non guided residents during the SB196 hearings or support that?
 
Dusty, we all know that it is easy to be misunderstood when typing out a conversation on the internet, in an email, or anything else. Sometimes it's impossible for the reader to grasp the intent and emotion behind the text. There is no eye contact, not body language; much is lost when reading basic text.

That being said, I've stated before that I do not doubt that YOUR personal intentions are basically good. As far as Robert goes, I wouldn't trust him any farther than I could throw him. Maybe he has changed for the better, I don't know. I haven't spoken to him since he showed up at the Desert Sage Expo a few years ago. He did come over to me and say hello, which shocked me a little. Maybe he just knew that he recognized me, but couldn't remember why? Who knows who cares?

Regarding the Q/HD rule, your "Yes" answer above is technically wrong. It did not "Require" anyone to apply for "S" type hunts.

That's one of the major points where I think you were mistaken.

I would sit out a year. I would NOT have put in for any "S" type hunts. The vast majority of people I spoke to felt the same.

Therefore you could say that the Q/HD rule would have no impact towards lowering the drawing odds of the standard hunts. We all know that there are people of every color.

What that means is yes, some people would have put three choices for an "S" type hunt, but it will not be enough people to actually hurt the overall odds of the standard hunts.

When any group such as the SFW, PETA, MSNBC, etc. does a survey, it is VERY VERY simple for them to get the outcome they want by simply asking the right people and influencing the rest.

Look at the article in the Farmington Daily times the other day that claimed that 90 % of New Mexico residents oppose trapping.

We know that's BS, but proves what I stated above is true.

When I asked people, I asked everyone that I came into contact with that I knew hunted. I did not lead them in any way. I asked them if they knew about the Q/HD rule and if they said no, I handed them the language I printed off the G&F website and asked them to think about it for a moment and then explain to me how they would apply going forward. Only one person, who was actually one of my employees, said that if he drew a Q/HD tag he would apply all three choices the next year for the standard hunt. Everyone else, after thinking about it, decided that they wouldn't apply for any of Standard hunts, because if they wanted to hunt those hunts, they would apply for them as a 2nd or 3rd choice now, but they don't and would have been happy to sit out for one year AFTER they drew a good tag because with this system they will draw those tags more often.

The comments that it would have only helped for one year are absolutely, 100% false. Every year 100% of the people that were successful would not be in the applicant pool, giving all the rest a much better chance to draw a tag.
It boils down to basic supply and demand. The supply is fixed, but the demand can be changed. That's what the Q/HD rule did. It reduced the demand by removing all of the successful applicants and gave the remainder of the applicant's better odds. Again, please look at it as a whole. Look at the entire data for Elk, i.e. - not just Unit 15 Archery.

You keep claiming that you are all for the common Joe?s. If this were true, why didn't anyone within the SFW ranks look at the draw odds on a Per Species basis and do the math, WITHOUT any speculation?????

Had you done this you would never have fought against it. It didn't just help the common Joe, it helped everyone.

The down side you thought you saw with it was, IMO, a simple mistake based on only partial knowledge of the impact. I studied it with several other people who are very good with math and have common sense and we all agreed with the numbers, even a buddy of mine who thought the Q/HD rule was stupid changed his mind completely when he actually took the time to study the draw odds and do the math himself.

The reason the SFW got under my skin was because you wouldn't listen to anyone outside your tight knit group. You didn't even try to look at it from a different perspective.

The SFW has pull. No one can deny that. Because of that you are obligated to refrain from jumping to conclusions, UNLESS you stop claiming to be all for the common Joe and tell the truth, you fight for what benefits SFW's wallet and nothing else.

SFWNM?s Mission statement is a Joke.

Keep on "Educating the public" to YOUR way of thinking because that's how you get what YOU want.

All of us "common Joes" will just have to keep fighting you until you stop trying to shove your one sided opinions and bureaucratic B.S. down our throats.

You mission statement should say: "SFWNM exists so that we can claim to support better habitat and gain paying members to support our fuel and vehicle maintance costs while "traveling on business", enrich the lives of Outfitters and Landowners, make fools of ourselves on the internet, and screw the common Joe's out of tags, and to drive up the price of auction items by bidding on them ourselves when the prices are too low"

All you have to do Dusty is to - for once - legitimately consider the wants and desires of all those who your influence has an impact upon, be honest and start running your organization with some integrity.

If you do what you've always done, you'll get what you've always got.

It's time for you to clean house and make some changes to the way SFWNM does things Dusty. You have the power to truly do good and to set things straight going forward.

Don't be a dumb redneck like me and crash thru the door guns a blazin'.

Take a step back. Get a new perspective on things. Think about what is right and what is wrong. Fix what needs fixin. If you think it ain't broke... look closer, just to make sure. Don't be afraid to ask for help from someone new. You CAN accomplish great things if you change your approach.

Cheers.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-18-12 AT 00:34AM (MST)[p]

I don't believe the q/hd will do anything but give a bump to the odds. If every successful q/hd applicant sat out one year, they simply get replaced the following year. The odds never change after that first bump. I believe we went thru the hunts back then and there wasn't much of an odds increase.
If you could break up the hunts into 3 categories instead of 2, and have different wait periods for each, I think you might have something that would distribute the applicants out over the hunts a little better.
 
>Cody,
>
>
>Yes they where loaded,
>
>Which I meant you had the
>answers in your head as
>you posted the ?'s. It
>would have not mattered how
>I answered. You had the
>answers in your head already.
>
>
>
>Just like Sean's.
>
>
>I get it you believe what
>you have read on a
>forum. Never have you looked
>at any FACTS of how
>it went down. Probably never
>will.
>

Dusty, by answering my questions with a defensive tone and without providing direct responses you have clearly demonstrated that neither you nor SFW NM is no different than the the Utah or Arizona chapters. My questions were direct, and I will agree with you to the extent that I did get the answers I expected from you. Sad, but true.

As anyone can tell from the questions I posed you, I have educated myself as to the actual issues at hand. Your slants and deflections continually indicate that you wish to distance yourself from the factual precedent set by SFW. Furthermore, you continually demonstrate that you will waive the banner of SFW when it benefits you, yet distance yourself when that seems the safest course of action.

This last post, your attempt at dumbing down my questions and attempts at drawing straight answers from you, the president and focal point of the local chapter, is clearly indicative of the fact that you are willing talk the proverbial SFW talk, while you sure have refused to walk the walk.

As for getting the facts straight? According to not only myself, but also the NRA and SCI, two of the preeminent groups representing the interests of sportsmen, it is SFW that cannot get its facts straight. I would encourage you to file the overdue annual reports for SFW NM so your status is returned to "good standing" with the NMPRC, read some of the baseless misrepresentations made to the public by SFW and the responses to SFW's misrepresentations before attempting to flip the "fact" issue over on me or anyone else reading this thread.

-Cody Lujan
 
Bull,
The intent of 196 was to remove the 12% Outfitter tags from the draw and pass them over to the resident side making the allocation 90/10. Outfitters didn't want to give up their tags, and neither did NMWF. The point of my comment was, the Outfitter pool decreased by 2%, the DIY pool decreased by 4%, and the resident pool increased by 6%.
The final compromise will benefit the residents of NM near as I can tell. With only 15K +- less applicants and the required license purchase, there should be an increase in revenue, even with the refund option. Residents have more tags and the outfitting money stays in the state as intended.


Regarding UW LO tags, I believe Dusty is wrong on the issue. Under the current system, the LO tags are the cheapest easiest way for the Dept. to deal with Elk/LO damage.
In the real world, there is no good reason what so ever to have unit wide LO tags. They are nothing but a currency voucher that costs the Dept. nothing to produce. Free money if you will. That I believe, is why they are so prevalent.
You need to have RO tags for the large ranches because you need to be able to harvest those animals. For the smaller guys the Dept could tack on a $25 fee to all the elk licenses and generate enough money to pay for damages and mitigation. They could then move most of the LO tags into the public draw, minus those large RO tags. They could also issue depredation Cow tags that were ranch only and for a several month period so the animals could be taken when the damage is occurring. There is no reason why you couldn't pop a few Cows in Jan or Feb on a RO tag if that's when they are there.
 
Wapiti Bob, I guess it comes down to perspective. SB196 originally was a 90/10 split much like Arizona. A compromise of 16% was made. The OF/LO group raped that compromise. The fact that they would take the majority of Nrs tags after the compromise speaks volumes. I mean even 8/8% would have at least shown they had a small heart. I just want to find out SFW's input regarding this fact. Did they in anyway support this 10/6 split with NRs tags as a compromise.
 
>LAST EDITED ON Apr-18-12
>AT 00:34?AM (MST)
>
>
>
>I don't believe the q/hd will
>do anything but give a
>bump to the odds. If
>every successful q/hd applicant sat
>out one year, they simply
>get replaced the following year.
>The odds never change after
>that first bump. I believe
>we went thru the hunts
>back then and there wasn't
>much of an odds increase.

_________________________________________________________________

Bob, that is simply not true at all. You'll need the big game proclamation and the draw odds report of the same year in order to do the calculations.

Please take the time to do the math and you will see that your comment above is incorrect.

I challenge you to prove me wrong and I will gladly thank you for settting me straight if you can actualy show me where my math is wrong.

I'd love to discuss with you over lunch, but I don't plan on being in Orygon in the near future, but if you'd like to discuss over the phone, send me a PM & we can discuss.
 
I didn't see where Outfitters took anything "after" a compromise; 16% is where they ended up.
The only group that "took" anything were the residents that took 2% of their local Outfitters tags, 4% of the DIY NR tags, all the Cow tags and all the WMA tags. More resident opportunity was the stated purpose of the Bill and I believe that was accomplished. There is more to NM hunting than just the perspective of UBNM, NMWF, or the Outfitters for that matter.

Regarding support, everybody signed off on the 84/10/6. NMWF, Munoz, and the Outfitters. I believe UBNM and SFW are in that mix too. I see no benefit to single out SFW over any of the others.

I don't care much for SFW and have mentioned that numerous ways but at least you know "mostly" where they stand. I would really like them to directly state they have no intention of pulling tags from the draw, create their own expo, and get into the "habitat business". But, being a chapter there is no way that will happen, thus my earlier comment that they should just start a new organization.

As Paul mentioned one time, if you could combine NMWF and SFW, tossing out a few pieces here and there, you would have a good organization.
 
And you would be wrong. Again, the 90/10 bill had no inclusion for OF set aside. The compromise was giving more pool % to NRs which would benefit OFs. It is my understanding that certain groups would not buy the SB196 bill unless 10% of that total NR pool was set aside for them. Obviously all decided it was all that could be accomplished. The question remains in context of the subject of this thread, did SFW support the 10/6 split or did they like a few other groups basically say, it sucks and we dont think its right but its all we can get from the OF/LO groups? this is where a group is on one side of an issue or the other.
 
This is what Espinoza and SFW presented to Munoz... The link has since been removed from the SFW website..





http://sfwnm.com/news/testimony-senate-bill-196/



February 7, 2011



Re: SB 196 Senator George Munoz Sponsor



Please accept my sincere gratitude for allowing me to help negotiate an equitable resolution that I believe address?s the major areas of concern. I will provide exact numbers after a more in-depth analysis of the data the Department of Game and Fish has provided me in the next few days. Please contact me with any questions or need for clarification.

Adopt the following formula for the public draw for Elk, Deer and Antelope:
83% Residents
7% Non-Residents
10% Guided non-residents
All unsubscribed licenses in the 7% Non-resident and the 11% Guided Non-Resident pools will shifted to the 82% Resident pool
All Public Draw Cow Elk hunts will be restricted to resident applicants only
Eliminate the proposed mandatory purchase of the $15.00 for residents and the $90.00 for non-residents for the ?hunting license?
Increase the cost of all resident and non-resident license?s for Elk, Deer and Antelope by $5.00 ? $10.00 to cover Departments shortfall as a result of the decrease in revenue caused by the sale of less non-resident licenses.
Alternative: Amend the current rule that would allow the department to charge more for application fees than its actual cost. The increase in application fee would be between $ 5.00 and $10.00 per application
Based on initial analyses of data provided by the Department of Game and Fish the following will be a result of the above recommendations:

After applying the 4% increase to the resident pool, shifting all the unsubscribed licenses in both the Non-resident and the Guided Non-Resident pools and restricting the cow elk licenses to residents, the net result will be an increase to residents that will exceed the 2700-3400 licenses outlined in the Departments FIR.
Eliminates the ?hunting license? that the majority of residents have not purchased in the past because the lack of need and the overwhelming majority of non-residents will never use.
Creates a shortfall of around ($500,000.) To the department
Increasing the license fee or increasing the application fee will more than cover the shortfall. Both are substantially less than the $15.00 and $90.00
Summary:

Increase in resident licenses
Eliminates a ?hunting License? that will be used only by a small percentage Hunters
Creates a mechanism to cover the shortfall in income to the department at a much less cost to the sportsman
Maintains an valuable industry in New Mexico close to the current levels
Keeps Non-resident ?New Money? flowing into New Mexico
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-18-12 AT 05:37PM (MST)[p]Did he seem intoxicated when he handed them out? It sure looks like a drunk wrote it.

You'd think that on something this important a person would proof read something they're about to hand out that was intended to change regulations!

Soooo.... Dusty.... Just HOW does that "Help" the Common Joe?

It's right there in plain english... SFW took the original SB196 and made it worse for the common joe, but by golly they sure did take care of their Outfitter buddies!!!

Do you dare still claim that the SFWNM is FOR the "common Joe"?

Haha! I'm sure this is going to get a little western before it's all over with.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-18-12 AT 03:27PM (MST)[p]My concern has been and still is, common joes being juked by these guys. I have said earlier that its easy to see the stakeholders of this org. Now you can plainly see that each of there SFW policies concerning tags does not benefit "common joe residents" or "common joe nonresidents" or those like myself who want quality over quantity. If you still support that, that is your business but you have no excuses now. To the koolaid drinkers, expect some political diatribe making excuses while having the gall to say they are the best thing going for "common joes". Sad but hilarious none the less.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-19-12 AT 09:55AM (MST)[p]It's sad to have to be so suspicious about a sportstmen's org, but that is what the UTSFW model has brought to the hunting landscape.

They have required sites like this pop up everywhere:

http://www.montanasportsmenalliance.com/

http://www.azgfc.org/readme.htm

The thing is, you don't know who to trust. They set up shop to weasel their cronnies into the game commissions, but do so very quietly. Other states have proven SFW has no problem lying to attain their goals of privatizing wildlife to line their pockets.

?Congressional offices and members of the media should exercise caution in accepting as fact, or repeating, any claims made by Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, Big Game Forever or any person claiming to represent them. Due to the blatant misrepresentation contained in the press release circulated by these two groups, any claims they make in the future should be thoroughly investigated and independently confirmed.? The complete press release can be viewed at www.montanasportsmenalliance.com. I encourage all voters to follow the advice of the NRA and not accept anything from the Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife as fact."

So who do you trust???


***********************************
Member RMEF, Pope & Young Club, UBNM, UWC & the SFW Hate Club
 
So who do you trust?

God.

How about the groups who have never lied.

RMEF & MDF are two that I trust, oh and the BASS anglers Sportsman's Society.
 
So the question is?

Would you rather have what SB196 became?

Or back before SB196? With the 78/12/10.

That is the question.


SB196 would have not got out of the senate. If not for the compromise. UBNM and NMWF did sign off on the compromised bill.



Sean as far as the Q/HD you must have not talked to any bowhunters, caused that rule basically screwed the bowhunters bad. Since most of the guys I am around are bowhunters guess that may have been the difference. Any added apps to the S type hunts - by any calculation method - does increase the odds on those hunts. Just saying.



Sean, do you know which group - lobbied for the govenor deer tags in the state? What about the elk tags?



Outside of a horse is good for the inside of a man.
 
>So the question is?
>
>Would you rather have what SB196
>became?
>
>Or back before SB196? With the
>78/12/10.
>
>That is the question.
>
>
>SB196 would have not got out
>of the senate. If not
>for the compromise. UBNM and
>NMWF did sign off on
>the compromised bill.
>

ARE YOU SERIOUS????... Don't try and change the past... You guys fought SB196 ALL ALONG... because you didn't want anything to change and when the writing was on the wall, R.E. presented that document and posted it on his website to save face with LO,OF,Ranchers etc... SWF is the reason we had to compromise... AMAZING...
 
Please answer my questions above first.

Also, I don't understand your last question and how it is relevant to any of this.

Are you talking about the Gov tags in NM?
Is there an issue with them that you want to share?
Lobbied for them what year? Do you mean in the begining, this year, last year, or what?

Everything I know about NM's Goveneror tags are good things.

You know how I feel about SB196. You also know that I am not alone.

SB196 is nothing more than a band-aid. It will only serve to slow the bleeding. Yes it provides more tags to residents and that is good.

There are better solutions.

Get rid of the Jennings rule, then we can discuss.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-19-12 AT 04:23PM (MST)[p]I am a bowhunter and yes I did talk to several other bowhunters.

It didn't hurt bowhunters in any way shape or form, it helped and it helped a lot.

Dusty, I've offered several times to discuss this in person with you. Bring your SFW clan, bring your bowhunting buddies. Ya'll can gang up on me and try to prove your right about the Q/HD rule.

Allow me to show you sometime.

In all seriousnes, what's the point in arguing about the Q/HD rule on the internet?

The Jennings Rule is really all that matters.

Jamaro, what's your stance on the Jennings rule?
 
Cody:

Thank you for starting this thread. It has been a very worthwhile read. Your posts are always classy and well tought out.

30inch:

You have mentioned in previous posts that sfwnm will not go after our tags as has been done in Utah, Alaska, and through the back door in Arizona however did make it known that in the future when your group has the means to do so would make a bid on the tags currently available. Your group already has a member on the game commission (it has begun). Will your group lobby to abolish the "90% rule mandated to be returned to NMDGF" so your group would not have to abide and will your group lobby for more tags to go to your group specifically. Will your group do this behind our backs as was done in Arizona or will your group try to achieve this in open view? What does don peay think of your efforts in New Mexico and what advice does your group receive from him?

Thank you for your time.

Carlos Garcia
 
Just an observation but from the posts above it appears that after months of haggling, Espinoza simply gave Munoz his outline for 196 and that's what you ended up with. If he's got that much pull the smart move would be to sit down and talk to him and get his support for some of the changes you want made.
 
Three years ago we almost had the Jennings rule overturned... We had a huge push after that guy up north shot all those antelope and we had a real chance... But it was a crazy session and in all honestly we just ran out of time. IMO, not getting this overturned was a bigger hit than not getting anything done on the A-plus situation...
J
 
WB... yeah that's what it looks like and that is what SFW wants you to believe.... This was presented AFTER they tried to stop ALL progress for NM Sportsman and they couldn't justify it politically... We have seen this tactic before with SFW with the wolves up north... basically, try to tank to something and then when it is a almost sure deal sweep in and try and take credit...

The original SB196 was much different...

J
 
Financials - public ? I would say no (too many anti?s), members in good standing ? yes, I have seen them on many occasions along with other members, they have been shown and discussed at several of our monthly meetings. However being a non-profit, tax returns are public record.

This should answer everybody's question until 30 inch and the rest of SFW will open the books and show where the money goes nobody should support them
 
Sean, I will answer for Jason

NMWF dont like Jennings law as well, we need teamwork on this, open invitation Jason lets either one change the wording so that is 1000 times more difficult for LO to kill ungulates or abolish it completely. Looking at the difficultes on abolishment from a political stance I now believe that substancially increasing the difficulty with changing the law would be an easier task.

Also Sean, we can meet and discuss the Q/HD stuff however if you do not look at it in a unit by unit manner then it is meaningless. Each draw odd is computed by unit so unless this in considered it is meaningless. Come out to bow shoot on tuesdays in Flora Vista, I am there every tuesday.

Carlos, for about the 100rd time, NM stuff only, no 90% is by law goes to NMG&F and we have zero desire to change it. IT should stay that way, it is all about habitat growing herds and doing a better job of maintaining or growing the hunting opportuinities in NM. Everyone else so far as seperated the SFW states in this thread, you have not, lets seperate the states like is what actually goes on. And no the "Don" lets us control NM he has no input on the decissions we make.

Jason, come on dude, being involved as you where you know that in no shape the original bill had a chance to pass. SB196 was going to die in original form. Was not even going to make it out of committee. Did I oppose orginal yes, however not for the reasons you claim. I posted my reasons many times, however like most of the internet - you ignore what I post and interpret what you think I meant.



Everyone I have answered your questions, I just ask that you answer mine. Did SB 196 by gaining the tags for NM resident, want to go back to before SB196 or are you in favor of the modified SB 196? PS question is for NM residents only! So you in OR and MO can ignore the quesiton.


It really is something to consider that Roberts proposal was almost identical of what was adopted, hmmm shows some insight and some "reaching accross to the other parties" dont it?


Outside of a horse is good for the inside of a man.
 
>Sean, I will answer for Jason
>
>
>NMWF dont like Jennings law as
>well, we need teamwork on
>this, open invitation Jason lets
>either one change the wording
>so that is 1000 times
>more difficult for LO to
>kill ungulates or abolish it
>completely. Looking at the difficultes
>on abolishment from a political
>stance I now believe that
>substancially increasing the difficulty with
>changing the law would be
>an easier task.
>
>Also Sean, we can meet and
>discuss the Q/HD stuff however
>if you do not look
>at it in a unit
>by unit manner then it
>is meaningless. Each draw odd
>is computed by unit so
>unless this in considered it
>is meaningless. Come out to
>bow shoot on tuesdays in
>Flora Vista, I am there
>every tuesday.
>
>Carlos, for about the 100rd time,
>NM stuff only, no 90%
>is by law goes to
>NMG&F and we have zero
>desire to change it. IT
>should stay that way, it
>is all about habitat growing
>herds and doing a better
>job of maintaining or growing
>the hunting opportuinities in NM.
>Everyone else so far as
>seperated the SFW states in
>this thread, you have not,
>lets seperate the states like
>is what actually goes on.
>And no the "Don" lets
>us control NM he has
>no input on the decissions
>we make.
>
>Jason, come on dude, being involved
>as you where you know
>that in no shape the
>original bill had a chance
>to pass. SB196 was going
>to die in original form.
>Was not even going to
>make it out of committee.
>Did I oppose orginal yes,
>however not for the reasons
>you claim. I posted my
>reasons many times, however like
>most of the internet -
>you ignore what I post
>and interpret what you think
>I meant.
>
>
>
>Everyone I have answered your questions,
>I just ask that you
>answer mine. Did SB 196
>by gaining the tags for
>NM resident, want to go
>back to before SB196 or
>are you in favor of
>the modified SB 196? PS
>question is for NM residents
>only! So you in OR
>and MO can ignore the
>quesiton.
>
>
>It really is something to consider
>that Roberts proposal was almost
>identical of what was adopted,
>hmmm shows some insight and
>some "reaching accross to the
>other parties" dont it?
>
>
>Outside of a horse is good
>for the inside of a
>man.
____________________________________________________________

1) You have not yet answered all the questions.

2) Thanks for the invite to shoot, I may take you up on that, but I doubt it's a good place to discuss the Q/HD rule. Will I need to bring my dueling pistols?

3) Why don't you want non-residents to comment? They have a dog in this fight too, less than residents yes, but they still play a part. I understand that the game animals in NM belong to the residents of NM, however you yourself once admitted that the funds and new money they bring in is a critical component.

4) I'm sure it's safe to speculate that Roberts proposal was created with great input from the guides and outfitters Asso., and the cattle growers asso. Or are you claiming that Robert came up with that proposal all by himself with zero input from the before mentioned groups?

5) I wish SB196 would have never happened.... Because there was a better solution that would have done more good, with the exception of the WMA's. What we're left with now is a temporary band-aid that yes, gave residents more opportunities thanks to Munoz & Jason's efforts, however it will be even more difficult now because of SB196 to implement a better plan.

SB196 was a settlement, a cop-out, even in it's original form. We could have done much better.
 
I keep hearing people from SFW saying that the original SB196 would never have passed.

THE problem is that original bill was much different than what was eventually passed.. it was SFW who opposed us and they are the REASON the original bill would have never gotten thru... SO, for SFW to say it would have never gotten thru is a disingenuous but we have SFW do this same thing in other cases. You guys remember Tiger talking about "we were against it , before they were for it"...

1FG- Thank you but I want to stress that this fight isn't over yet... I don't know if there will ever be a perfect system is or WHAT a PERFECT system is but we will keep trying...

As far as I am concerned we need to go after
1) Jennings Law
2) Fix the A-plus system, 65% of tags going to NR is just wrong
3) fight this new proposal regarding UW LO Antelope Tags
4) LO tags
5) Wolves
 
30" your comment's along with the facts presented in this discussion continue to support the fact that SFW is dishonest. So, you are doing NM SFW political spin again I see. You ask " which would you rather have, the way it was or the way it is now". the deceptive nature of this question deflects the fact that SFW was on board from the beginning with opposition to sb196. Its a rhetorical questions that we all know the answer and is meant to deflect. You state that you opposed SB196 for other reasons besides cutting back on OF subsidies and giving more tags to "Joe sportsmen". Well, although my gut tells me that was "part" of the reason SFW was against,I will give u the benefit of the doubt. What it does say is, the values of SFW did not prioritize "Joe hunter". This would also include most NRs because your groups "compromise" also screwed them over. So when u ask the question, you forget to say you were totally onboard with the the change after SFW realized they could not stop some change from happening. It was not like SFW was a neutral group with no allegiances being a intermediary between the factions. You guys promoted making sure it could not get through in its original form. Get real!
 
Jason, although I haven't seen eye to eye with you on some of the positions you have taken on some important topics, we can make note that I do completely agree with your last post. In general I think you are sometimes too far on one side of the fence. I do appreciate and respect those who fight for what they feel is right and are honest about everything, even if I don't agree 100%. I know you are fighting the good fight.


It's good that we're all passionate. It's not good however that SFW has not been completely honest.

How can we all accomplish the truly great feats if we can't trust each other? That's why I've been trying to give SFW-NM the opportunities to come clean in New Mexico.

United we stand, divided we fall.

If we can at least all find common ground and agree with a plan to correct the Jennings rule we will have accomplished a great feat!!

The Q/HD rule discepency between many hunters isn't at the top of my list of priorities. Yes, I would love to have the opportunity to discuss it with those who opposed it someday in hopes that all parties will come to the table with an open mind.

If those of us who supported it so happend to have missed something and it can be proven that it really was a bad plan, so be it. I just hope that those who opposed it feel the same way and will be open minded about the discussion when it happens.

For now, I suggest we all work on #1 - The Jennings Rule.

Until SFW-NM changes the way they do things and/or comes clean; it will be much more difficult for them to accomplish anything compared to what we could all accomplish if we were all rowing in the same direction. Right now, everyone is rowing in different directions and this ship is going in circles.

Coach Bobby Knight said it best: "Do what has to be done, when it has to be done, as well as it can be done, and do it that way all the time."
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-20-12 AT 10:18AM (MST)[p]Jason, there will never be a perfect system.

Why? Because we're all born sinners that's why.
We have to deal with the 7 deadly sins, primarily "Gluttony, Pride, Envy, and Greed", but all 7 actually have an impact upon the way things are today.

Because of this fact, we'll never make everyone happy.

The best possible solution is to do what's right and create a system that provides the most benefit to ALL parties involved.

That's my goal.
 
Sean,

1. Yes I have

2. No pistols, but bring your bow we will shoot a round while talking.

3. We all know what there answers are.

4. No it was input from all the groups memtioned.

5. I would agree on that. Hated orginal more than the modified version. Be intresting to see what the odds are after this year.

Jason,

The invite is there as before to take on #1.


Bull,

There is tremedous economic value added to the state by having the OF pool. Yes that was part of the opposition, the economics of the G&F dept and the economics of the entire state was another reason. Also all NR, either DIY or Guided. Orginal bill went from the 22% to 10%, compromise went to 16% total.




Outside of a horse is good for the inside of a man.
 
Jason:

I hope decreasing/eliminating the outfitter set aside is on NMWF's list?

As I've said before I am new do this stuff, I had not even heard of the Q/HD proposal. I like the idea, but that is because I am unlucky in the draw :(

My take on Jenning's law is this, the cattlemen's association has enough polical power to block a repeal Jenning's law. To repeal it they will want something in return. Jennings in a 2008 ABQ journal article was quoted saying this, although he did not give specifics.

I believe they want to shift the responsiblity from the landowner's having to post their property to hunter's being responsible for knowing where they can hunt from maps and GPS. I would bet SFW will side with the cattlmen on this issue.

There are many hunter's in NM that just can't afford a GPS. When you look at the UW system and the difficulty that people have trying to figure out which properties are open to hunt you can see the problem. I do not think this is a good idea.

Since Jason announced the reduction of 11,000 resident apps. I have made it a point to talk to people to see why it may be. The answer I get is it is becoming too expensive. I don't know anyone who did not apply but it seems most other people do. So it's not scientific.

I hope I am wrong and Jenning's law can be repealed simply because it is the right thing to do.
 
What many are against is your proposal of giving NRs a 6% part of that pool. No one that i am aware of is against the OF business. We would have ALOT more NRs putting in for hunts here if it was 16% all NRs and that would be good for us. You can be sure that reputable OFs would be put to work in a sizeable way out of that 16%NR pool and that economic value would not be a "tremendous" difference.By the way, do you guys support holding LOs that recieve tags and OFs being held accountable for paying all taxes on that income? There is still much inequity when it comes to the amount of tags that are being pulled out of the general pool, whether it be LO tag over-compensations or OF entitlements. You may say you agree to some extent but actions speak louder than words. Here is how the sb196 compromise broke down. Residents surrendered 6% back, NRs surrendered 4plus% back and SFW Stakeholders surrendered 2%.
 
About the outfitters subsidies...
Yes, the original SB196 got rid of those but SFW insisted that they put in...
We always wanted/want a straight draw...

J
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-20-12 AT 01:01PM (MST)[p]Dusty,

1) I checked again and still don't see answers to several questions, but it is clear that you are making an attempt, so thank you for that.

1a) Soooo.... Dusty.... Just HOW does that "Help" the Common Joe?

1b) How, when, where, did the NRA and or the SCI "sling mud"?


The above two questions are the only two I am looking for that I didn't find answers to.
The first one was regarding Robert's proposal.
The 2nd question is asking you to substantiate your claim. I may be a member of the NRA, but I don't answer all their phone calls to my house or read all their news. It's too much information sometimes; kinda like getting fed thru a fire hose. So if they are truly "slinging mud at SFW", I'd like to know about it.
 
Bull,

There is tremedous economic value added to the state by having the OF pool. Yes that was part of the opposition, the economics of the G&F dept and the economics of the entire state was another reason. Also all NR, either DIY or Guided. Orginal bill went from the 22% to 10%, compromise went to 16% total.
_________________________________________________________

Dusty, please explain this, I don't see it.

Maybe a NM outfitter can chime in here to help explain how this is possible.

Other than the fees the outfitters charge NR's to apply in the special pool, how does this provide economic value to the state?

If there was no outfitter preference pool for nonresidents (residents could also apply this year), would they get less business?

If the above sentence is what you are saying, was there a study done to document this claim or is it purely speculation?

New Mexico has some truly outstanding outfitters who's reputations are rock solid. I just don't see them losing any business.
 

Similar threads

MADD hunts
DIY & Semi Guided Mexico hunts available
Replies
0
Views
555
MADD hunts
MADD hunts
F
Change UNIT-WIDE elk designation in New Mexico to RANCH ONLY!
Replies
54
Views
3k
MrRogers
MrRogers
MADD hunts
Mexico DIY - Tags
Replies
0
Views
861
MADD hunts
MADD hunts

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

20221105_093249.jpg
561FF2EA-A1A2-4B84-B6F1-41B69B1E709A.jpeg
africa_102.jpeg
31FFE8B1-C504-4410-87D6-8FE7571A0026.jpeg
IMG_0857.jpg
4DB0E7FD-E1DB-4D29-AFB9-6C4AC3DE29D1.jpeg
Screenshot_20221106_084539.jpg
0A19BB18-31D4-4BBF-B88A-92AE8A2AC219.jpeg
03B1D327-E319-436F-A8FA-04891CB2A9E3.jpeg
A33C9A40-204A-4F57-BC70-6CA4312BF54B.jpeg
C2DC53EF-B618-4276-81FD-0538D340C7C7.jpeg
Big Butt.JPG

New Mexico Guides & Outfitters

H & A Outfitters

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

505 Outfitters

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

Sierra Blanca Outfitters

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

Urge 2 Hunt

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

Mangas Outfitters

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

Back
Top Bottom