RMEF, et al v. NMWF-Thoughts

[JFWRC]

Oppose S. 285: Valles Caldera National Preserve Management Act

The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is among 25 outdoor conservation organizations that remain opposed to Senate bill 285 which would designate the VCNP in north-central New Mexico as a unit of the National Park System (NPS).

The New Mexico Wildlife Federation (NMWF) is circulating supposed ?FACTS?
that are inaccurate regarding S. 285, such as:

HUNTING & FISHING GUARANTEED BY LAW:
This is NOT a given. The NPS, which prohibits hunting in its parks, allows hunting in most preserves but the bill language still allows it to be shut down. The NPS or the Secretary of Interior may, at any time, elect to terminate any or all hunting on the VCNP. While a recent amendment strengthened language to that effect, the bill states the Secretary may still implement ?regulations closing areas within the Preserve to hunting, fishing, or trapping.? S. 285 does not provide any long-term guarantee toward sustained hunting. Language also states management and operations of the VCNP may be coordinated with the Bandelier National Monument where hunting is prohibited.

VCNP TAGS GO TO OUT-OF-STATE HUNTERS:
VCNP wildlife officials maintain these are blue collar hunting opportunities, not high dollar hunts designed for the rich. The state quota formula remains in place on the VCNP, as across all of New Mexico (84% to residents, 10% to residents or nonresidents with an outfitter and 6% to nonresidents without an outfitter), as an effective method offering equitable hunting opportunity for the average sportsman and woman.

VCNP USED AS ?ELITIST? SYSTEM TO BENEFIT RMEF & OTHER ORGANIZATIONS:
The NMWF seems to be trying to create a perception that RMEF is selling hunting tags on the VCNP for its own profit motives. RMEF has a long and proven track record to the contrary. RMEF supports the VCNP by accepting 4 elk and 8 donated turkey tags, placing them up for auction as a fundraising mechanism, and then returned nearly $40,000 to date for on-the-ground VCNP land and wildlife conservation projects.

VCNP IS A FAILED EXPERIMENT
This year?s lottery will raise $320,000. Original legislation called for the VCNP to become financially self-sufficient by raising funds for land and wildlife management. The elk hunting program is a major player in this arena. Elk hunts are lottery based with one lottery ticket for a bull/either sex hunt costing $30 apiece or $20 per ticket for antlerless-only hunts. (Antlerless hunts are available only for New Mexico
residents.) There is a limit of 20 tickets per hunt code with people entering as many of the 14 hunt codes as preferred. The average purchase is 3.5 tickets per customer. (Again, the 84%-10%-6% resident formula from above applies.)

Additionally, habitat management is not a priority for NPS. It lives by a ?let it be and nature will manage? mantra, which will not serve the VCNP well if we are to expect it to remain open access for sportsmen and active hunting.

Under current law, the VCNP will become another unit of Santa Fe National Forest, allowing the U.S. Forest Service to become the managing agency.
This is the preferred rout as the USFS has vast experience with wildlife and habitat management. While claiming to represent New Mexico sportsmen, the NMWF supports the least appealing option to sportsmen of transferring the Valles Caldera to the National Park System.

Read the bill language here:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s285/text

--------------------------------------------

Connect with the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/RMEF1 Twitter - https://twitter.com/RMEF YouTube - http://www.youtube.com/user/elkfoundation
BlogSpot - http://rmefblog.blogspot.com

--------------------------------------------

This e-mail advertisement was sent to xxxx.com. You received this e-mail as a valued supporter of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. If you prefer not to receive e-mail offers like this one from the RMEF in the future, you may Click Here http://newsletter.rmef.org/UC000886NDQ0NzA3.HTML. The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is located at 5705 Grant Creek Rd, Missoula, MT 59808.

 

[Gator]

New Mexico Wildlife Federation (NMWF) is about wildlife,They could care less about anyone being able to hunt that wildlife.
Hope for your State They don't get those little money-grubbing hands on it.

"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/]

 

[jamaro]

This is being address in the other thread...

but
This is the stuff from the RMEF that drives me nuts... I am not saying they are purposely misleading people but there facts just don't pan out and to the average person it is well.. Misleading..

1) No hunting is guaranteed ANYWHERE.. the verbiage is the same as NFS lands.. They are trying to scare people...

2)Those 12 tags are typically not purchased by Residents and i am not sure if anyone has every said that the tags go to NR..We fought to have them included in the quota

3) Those donated tags are going to the highest bidder... Alot more money that 40,000 was raised off of those tags... Overhead? Yes,I know they have done work on the property but then it isn't volunteer work. It shouldn't be "we will work if you give us tags..." I would love to see if the RMEF "volunteers" if it goes to the NFS??? I doubt it

4)$320,000 Ok... So who is going to cover the over 3 million? Yes, it isn't working.. Oh by the way RMEF... How did the Double H's work out for you?? and how many hunts did you have for your members? None, all your hunts went to the highest bidders and movie stars..

To me it seems that the national RMEF is trying to hold on to it's "donated" tags...

This is a perfect example of a national organization coming in at the last moment and trying to influences matters after years of discussions...

 

[Jeremy]

Jim Welles,

This was already addressed on another thread. But just to point it out here too: RMEF did not realize that 84 percent of the Caldera bull elk licenses are going to residents only because NMWF got the New Mexico Attorney General to force the VC Trust to apply the quota. Before that, the Trust was claiming the quota did not apply to them and almost 75 percent of the bull tags being raffled by the Trust were going to non-residents.

Heres is a direct quote from the Albuquerque Journal:

"Last year, under the old system, Game and Fish held a drawing for eight of the Caldera's bull tags, and the Caldera itself held a drawing for 48 bull tags. Of the latter group, only 13 hunters who drew licenses were from New Mexico. Texas hunters scored seven of the tags, while other winners hailed from as far away as Indiana, Kentucky and Hawaii."

So why are residents getting 84 percent of the bull tags today? Because of NMWF.

 

[JFWRC]

Jeremy Vesbach-

OK what about the other 24 well respected hunting organizations you guys are so smarter than?

"So why are residents getting 84 percent of the bull tags today? Because of NMWF." Don't forget taking credit for alienating the entire landowner community and Game and Fish. Yes NMWF is a truly amazing organization.

 

[Jeremy]

Jim,

I know you have a problem with NMWF over our position on resident opportunity. More importantly you don't like our position that re-salable and unit-wide licenses are out of control and need to be reformed. I get it. NMWF is a threat to you.
You'd like NMWF to be an organization that went along to get along and accepted the fact that the best hunting is for the rich and average folks should be happy with the leavings.

But this post was supposed to be about the letter you posted, right?

Well it is a simple fact. If not for NMWF, 75 percent of the bull tags the Caldera auctioned would still be going to non-residents.
Another simple fact, if not for NMWF we'd still have $10,000 public land access fees at the Caldera as well.


Jeremy

 

[JFWRC]

Jeremy-

I to have a problem with A+ and E+. Let's get rid of them and lets see what happens. I would like to see how things work with private land. My prediction....nothing would change. Folks would still be required to pay to access private land....no matter whether they had a piece of paper or not.

Please address why 25 other organizations are not as well informed as your organization.

Why are RMEF and others wrong..... in not supporting 285?

PS-Congrats on getting the Caldera into the quota in 2009. You did it!

Jim

 

[Jeremy]

Jim,

You can keep asking the same question, but you know I cannot speak for the organizations that endorsed that letter. I've scratched my own head as to why the Ruffed Grouse Society opposed S 285 -- there is not a ruffed grouse within 750 miles of the caldera. I can tell you that we are reaching out and trying to talk to some of the people who signed the letter (all out of state orgs) and provide them with more background information.

We've been working on this closely for years, and have posted the facts and explanations of why we support the legislation. We've looked at other National Preserves and have seen a pattern of keeping hunting open. I also think we will succeed in getting a bill introduced and passed to allow bowhunts into Bandelier National Monument.

Just to correct what you said above, NMWF got the Caldera into the quota in 2003 (at that time 78 percent). In 2009, we blocked an attempt to bring back the $10,000 access fees and exempt the Caldera from the quota. In 2011 we fell short of getting a 90-10 quota, because a few people profiting from the outfitter set-aside made a pretty big stink about keeping it (not pointing fingers, just explaining)

Jeremy

 

[GregMc]

Jim,

RMEF is just protecting a financial interest because they get tags to auction off.
As I recall, you're not even from NM.
That's something you have in common with the groups opposed to 285. They don't have staff or leadership or much of anything in NM. As far as I'm aware, there are only two sportman's organizations in NM that have staff and they both support the bill.
Most of the folks at RMEF couldn't even point to Valles Caldera on a map, much less tell you anything meaningful about the area or the bill.
RMEF is just protecting a financial interest because they get tags to auction off.
Where was RMEF when Valle Vidal was at risk? Where was RMEF when the legislature tried to take sportsman hunting license dollars? Where was RMEF when the state land office was locking NM sportsmen out of publicly owned land? Where was RMEF when NMWF federation was fighting to get more public hunting opportunity? Where was RMEF when the Game Commission was violating the open meetings act?
Let me answer that for you, while NMWF was working for sportsmen and winning those fights for the good off NM hunters, RMEF never showed up once. I guess they off spending the money from the 12 Valles Caldera auction tags they receive annually, doing something beside looking out for NM sportsmen.
RMEF is just protecting a financial interest because they get tags to auction off.

 

[cantgetdrawn]

>
>I to have a problem with
>A+ and E+. Let's get
>rid of them and lets
>see what happens. I would
>like to see how things
>work with private land. My
>prediction....nothing would change. Folks would
>still be required to pay
>to access private land....no matter
>whether they had a piece
>of paper or not.
>

This is off topic, but if you have any clout at all with the cattlemen's association and outfitter & guide consortium please make it happen. There would be problems, but I believe it would be much better than the system we have now. I think the e-plus system is worse than a-plus, so it would be a good place to start. Tags would be rationed and those who choose to would pay trespass fees. The only problem I see is Jennings Law, but with the cattlemen's blessing it would easily be repealed.

 

[JFWRC]

Jeremy-

Don't forget to belittle SCI, NRA, WSF, and the NWTF.

Gotta pass both Houses of Congress you know. Sure hope your lobbyist in the Sierra Club and WEG can beat the others.....might have to eat crow.

Interesting that the big kahuna of NMWF is out in these forums. What gives.....Jason not handling well enough for you or are you escared that the NMWF rep just took a burning turn?

Can't------Your boss threw the first on E+ and A+. Had to give my 2 cents. Gotta pay to access private for deer, turkey, bear, lion, and Barbs.....no LO permits there....wouldn't make a diff for elk or antelope. What are your thought about RMEF taking shots at NMWF?

GregMc----who are you? Are you a NMWF groupee?

 

[Jeremy]

Jim,

I'd really like to hear your reply to can'tgetdrawn. Did you mean what you said, you would support elimination of E+ and A+? Honestly would like to know.

Nice try with the Sierra Club, WEG attempts but you know we fought and beat the Sierra Club and WEG in their anti-trapping initiative at the legislature. We've fought their lead ban work successfully too. Swing and a miss, Jim. Sorry if our pro-hunting work doesn't put money in your pocket.

Also am I understanding right that you think it unimportant that NMWF got the quota applied to the Caldera? I realize there was no money in it for you, but I think it is a pretty big deal that NMWF flipped the bull elk hunts on the Caldera from 75 percent non-resident to 84 percent resident. NMWF also stopped the $10,000 hunting access fees. I'm feeling pretty good about the prospects of expanding bowhunts into bandelier as well.

Jeremy

 

[JFWRC]

Yup-

I think its outta control as well. Don't need the piece of paper. Don't need it for deer now. Don't need it for Barbs. But you are not going to get access for nothing Jeremy. Won't happen. If you think a piece of paper stands between you and hunting......your nuts. You miss the point totally. Are you going to let folks come into your back yard just because there is a squirrel there to hunt......I don't think so.

OMG-you are not going to try to claim you did the anti trapping bill as well.

Lets get back on topic....why do you guys think NRA, SCI, and others are not buying into your SB285. Because its has other problems you aren't seeing. If you think "shall allow" now means it cannot be manipulated somehow you are awfully na?ve.....

 

[WapitiBob]

"RMEF is just protecting a financial interest because they get tags to auction off."

Zero dollars from auction tags isn't much of a "financial interest".

 

[Jeremy]

Jim,

NMWF members got more comments in and did more press than any other org to stop the anti-trapping effort. That is a fact that we verified with the committee members. We worked that bill hard. Others worked hard too, but you cannot discount the work of NMWF.

It's become obvious this argument is not about Valles Caldera for you. You see an opening to try and bash NMWF, a group that you see as a threat to your personal income stream. You have not made one substantive argument about the Caldera.

The A+ and E+ programs are out of control and I hope you are being honest in supporting their elimination. Everyone knows that landowners can still control access to their property and charge fees of their choice. You could still make money without these programs too.

NMWF has a track record of working for blue collar resident opportunity at the Caldera. Without NMWF you would be seeing $10,000 hunting access fees and 75 percent of the bull tags going to non-residents. S 285 is a step forward for hunters. Right now the Caldera could be legally closed to hunting, because there is no mandate at all in existing law to keep hunting open. But under S 285 there is a mandate. 19 out of 20 other NPS Preserves allow hunting and the evidence is that they keep hunting programs going once they start them (as required by law). I believe we will also get bowhunting expanded into neighboring Bandelier National Monument.

Jeremy

 

[Gator]

See it comes back to Access, you guys best get hold of that critter(access) because it is what makes this pony ride.
Still have no idea on who did what or claim they did it.
I do know that NMWF is taking credit for handing the NR the $hitty end of the stick at least for now.

"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/]

 

[wilhille]

Doesn't the forest service have the same wording?

 

[wilhille]

Gator, ask Jim who handed the NR DIY the chit end of the stick. He was there during SB 196.

 

[cantgetdrawn]

LAST EDITED ON Jun-22-13 AT 00:41AM (MST)[p]Jim

He is not my boss, I am not a member of NMWF and I never met the guy. I am a member of RMEF and got the email this morning. Although they make some good points I think someone at RMEF went off half-cocked. Before such an email was sent out to members, RMEF should have contacted NMWF and discussed the issue.

A similar thing happened a couple of years ago over the wilderness study area and road closures. RMEF joined the a bunch of other organizations supporting a bill to close the study areas and open more roads. This did not sit well with members and they backtracked. If I remember correctly they both made the same mistake with the wolf issue when they were first introduced.

NMWF seems to have been on top of the issue while RMEF, SCI etc, are just now reacting. I think both RMEF and NMWF can benefit sportsmen and when they disagree on issues they can be civil. I believe that 99% of the time both groups share the same interests. This cannot be said of public land hunters with respect to LOs and outfitters.

Finally I prefer VC to be handed over to USFS, only because I think this will save taxpayers money. I am not a political scientist but I think it is obvious the main reason this bill exists is to provide jobs and tourist dollars for the local economy. As far as the quality of hunting on VC, I believe it will decline either way. NPS may be a little worse but that is not 100% clear.

You did ask what I thought (grin)

 

[JFWRC]

Cantgetdrawn-Please accept my apologies. I regret that I came out with that one.....you are right, it was off topic and I was wrong with my reaction.

Jeremy-You are spot on.....I am taking this opportunity to expose that NMWF has ulterior motive behind all of the support for 285. NMWF is allied heavily with the Senators and want to keep that political connection strong, instead of trying to find ways to make the Caldera work by means of cutting budgets wrought with inefficiency. Just give up and give it more oversight with federal tax dollars. I say find ways to make it work without all the employees heavy salaries and inefficient capital expenditures. I do not support handing it over to an agency that in my mind threatens the ability to hunt the Caldera. The bill said "shall permit" in its prior to amendment. I don't for one minute believe the park service won't use its discretion on limiting the hunting on the Caldera. It shall have hunting, but it won't be in its current form.

I am sure you are keenly aware of the situation on the Mexican Wolf and the issue being sought to change its status. Have you or your organization ever discussed the reintroduction of this species to the Caldera or Bandalier?

Sent you a PM.

Jim

 

[cosmic_cowboy]

I think Wolves and Traping should be brought into the conversation.
If the NPS gets control and decides they want to turn wolves lose the rest of the northern part of NM is screwed and there wont be any elk left to hunt on the VC.
Something has to change for the VC to survive I hope we can make the correct choice... I just don't trust the NPS to keep what we have now in the VC. But just making it part of unit 6 controlled by the NFS is not an option either. Maybe a separate unit like the VV is the best option.

CC

 

[EVILNR]

If NM loses VC hunting opportunities, well.....you've earned it.

 

[jamaro]

>
>Jeremy-You are spot on.....I am taking
>this opportunity to expose that
>NMWF has ulterior motive behind
>all of the support for
>285. NMWF is allied heavily
>with the Senators and want
>to keep that political connection
>strong, instead of trying to
>find ways to make the
>Caldera work by means of
>cutting budgets wrought with inefficiency.
>Just give up and give
>it more oversight with federal
>tax dollars. I say find
>ways to make it work
>without all the employees heavy
>salaries and inefficient capital expenditures.
>I do not support handing
>it over to an agency
>that in my mind threatens
>the ability to hunt the
>Caldera. The bill said "shall
>permit" in its prior to
>amendment. I don't for one
>minute believe the park service
>won't use its discretion on
>limiting the hunting on the
>Caldera. It shall have hunting,
>but it won't be in
>its current form.
>
>I am sure you are keenly
>aware of the situation on
>the Mexican Wolf and the
>issue being sought to change
>its status. Have you or
>your organization ever discussed the
>reintroduction of this species to
>the Caldera or Bandalier?
>
>Sent you a PM.
>
>Jim


Jim Wells.
You are just wrong.. expose what??? We have been out front with everything... You have it in for the Fed because you want to blame us for the the "Jim Wells Rule"... Sorry Jim, that was the OF..

The problem is there is no economy in scale so EVERYTHING has to be repeated to keep the VC running... Different HR, Different Maintenance teams, different everything... That is the real issue, look at insurance $100,000 a year??? The NPS or the NFS doesn't have that burden...

If it was so easy for this to happen the Double H's would still be owed by the RMEF...

How do you know it will not be in it's current form? You are just trying to scare people... YOU DON"T KNOW... it is pure conjecture...

Jim, you keep asking and the answer is the same, we have never discussed asking for the introduction of wolves in VC or Bandalier... You are like the kid that keeps asking the same question over and over again hoping that the answer will change....

J

 

[Jeremy]

Cosmic,

My first thought was to make it like Valle Vidal as well. I have not been lucky enough to draw a hunt at the Valle Vidal yet, but I have been able to go along on a few hunts with friends and spent a lot of time there when NMWF was working to protect the area from coal-bed methane development. Here is what you need to consider: Valle Vidal is not close to any population centers and is surrounded by private land. It is easy to patrol and has a fraction of the visitor demand. Nobody would suggest there should be a visitor center at Valle Vidal.
The big hurdle that could not be overcome for USFS management is the issue of adequate resources. An earmark would be needed specifically for the Caldera in order to get adequate resources to the USFS to manage it. You can guess how popular that idea would be.
Another consideration today is that the question has already received a good deal of public scrutiny. The state senate passed a memorial in 2009 asking the congressional delegation to look into three options for the Caldera: USFS management, NPS management and USFWS management. The Los Alamos County Council held public listening sessions on USFS management vs NPS management in 2010. They voted unanimously for NPS. Jemez Springs also made a unanimous vote in favor.
There is never a perfect answer. NMWF has been engaged and has pushed all along to make sure that all agencies were given consideration and that whichever agency was decided on, that hunting was mandated in the authorizing legislation. The hunting mandate in S 285 might sound like a small thing, but keep in mind that there is currently no hunting mandate in law for the Caldera or on USFS lands to allow hunting. There is never a perfect answer, but on the upside, the NPS Preserve option presents an opportunity to open bowhunting in Bandelier, which we are pushing for. I am not saying you should agree, but I do want you to know that NMWF has approached this in a logical manner and been engaged on behalf of sportsmen interests. It will be critical if this bill passes for sportsmen to be engaged on the ground from the beginning because the one thing that is true of any government agency applies here too: what they do this year will be mostly what they did last year -- so we want to start out on the right foot from the beginning.

Jim, I did not get your PM. Feel free to email me any time.

For anyone else looking for information or if you have an issue you think NMWF should look into, we are here in NM and our door is open.

My email is: [email protected] Office contact is: 505-299-5404, 121 Cardenas NE, Albuquerque, NM
There is almost always at least one of three of us at the office, but I do recommend calling before dropping by, just to make we aren't out at a meeting or something.

Jeremy

 

[Gator]

Question: What is the "JIM WELLES RULE" never heard that one.

"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/]

 

[WapitiBob]

LAST EDITED ON Jun-22-13 AT 11:39AM (MST)[p]

Under SB196 NMWF refused to decrease the resident allotment for tags, the Outfitters refused to decrease their allotment of tags, and the net result was Outfitter tags dropped 2% and unguided NR dropped 4% (down to the current 6%). That 6% moved over to the resident side.

Some like to place all the blame on Outfitters when in reality everybody signed off on it. Jim is vocal here so a few in the peanut gallery like to toss a jab once in a while.

 

[Jeremy]

WapitiBob,

Did you know that when the outfitter set-aside was created, it applied to ALL non-resident tags? The original idea behind the outfitters set-aside was that every nonresident who drew a tag had to hire an outfitter to hunt in NM. The set-aside has been getting scaled back since then. First to 12 percent, then to 10 percent...
Have you seen anything about the economic impact of when the outfitter set-aside tags were eliminated in Montana? I remember there were predictions of gloom and doom, but have not heard anything since. I know you follow the going's on in other states and wonder if you tracked that?

Thanks,

Jeremy

 

[wilhille]

Jeremy beat me to it.
Basically the only reason the DIY NR have any tags, is because the Residents gave up 6% off of the first proposal of 90-10.
Way off wapitibob. Good try though.

 

[NMPaul]

I have not chimed in on this because I just do not know what the solution is.

I am not going to say one solution is right and another is wrong because of the organization that supports it or is against it.

I am glad that the discussion regarding the future of the Valle Caldera is being escalated.

Hunting has to be part of its future. The potential income from elk hunting there cannot be dismissed.

What is the amount that they are currently in the red each year?

Is it even close? Is a temporary stop gap measure a solution to buy some more time?

 

[JFWRC]

LAST EDITED ON Jun-22-13 AT 01:50PM (MST)[p]Jeremy-

Where did you get that lie? You were not even around in 1996 when it was negotiated and quite frankly that's when I really get steamed as you were not around when Oscar, Larry, and original members of UBNM sat down with the outfitters and hammered the deal out with legislators. There was NO quota then and Nonresidents were treated equally as they should be today on ALL Federal lands. Outfitters took a big hit then and as I have said before, all walked away from that table OK OK. The ones that won that one were the residents and it was good. Outfitters took it in the shorts then and again....there was no quota.

Please retract that lie....damn, its statements like that and those of Jason about saying landowners were behind the last A+ proposal that really fuel the ongoing war. Stop the lies, stop the war......its that simple.

This BS is exactly why our department of game and fish can't stand NMWF. You guys lie, distort, claim victory to be the all in all.....

It really is destroying your credibility everywhere......again, point to the RMEF letter and the organizations against SB285.

Jim

 

[WapitiBob]

LAST EDITED ON Jun-22-13 AT 02:21PM (MST)[p]Jeremy, I have no problem with 100% of all tags in NM going to residents; it's a NM decision. I work within your program rules. What tends to set off my passive/aggressive behavior are comments like those above. Both you and Jim were actively involved with 196 and both NMWF and the Outfitters were looking out for their respective interests. I would hope and expect you to try and garner the largest percentage of the tags that you could get. I would also expect the Outfitters to do the same. The NR had the short end of the stick, and rightfully so. They have no say in the matter of state allotted tags.
The reality is, and the parties to the final compromised legislation know, outfitters gave up 2% of their allotment to the resident pool. Unguided NR, who again, have no say in the matter, gave up 6% to that same resident pool. It wasn't "the outfitters fault" anymore than it was NMWF or any other groups "fault". Both parties, resident hunters and resident outfitters, if you want to look at it that way, are "resident interests". The compromise benefited both resident interests, as it should, and the Legislature agreed, passing the Bill. The remaining 6% going to NR is what was left over and we should be happy we got that much.
The belief that Outfitters don't deserve their own pool of tags is a separate issue in my opinion.

Regarding the economic impact in Montana, I don't hunt Montana and have not followed any of their Outfitter/tag issues. I do believe I have seen grumblings of a Legislator wanting to add another 1000+ Outfitter tags while they haven't sold the ones they have.

I look at hunters as nothing more than tourists. We happen to kill things when we have a tag rather than take their picture or ski down a mountain. It's my opinion that our "impact" on the state of NM is looked upon in that perspective also, which is why you have Outfitter tags, and the usual comments of "residents pay more than non residents" has no bearing on the issue of "NR economic impact". Our dollars come from out of state, as tourism dollars. No different than a family going skiing or fishing for a week. It has a measurable impact.

If the Outfitter tags went away, how much would those hunter dollars decrease? I have no idea. I would think your tourism board would need to quantify how much is currently brought in, then guesstimate the loss due to "outfitted hunters" not drawing, then hunting in another state and taking their money with them. I would like to think somebody "independent" came up with numbers previously when 196 was going on. Once you have those numbers it's a simple discussion of are these set aside tags worth this much additional revenue vs placing them in the pool for our resident hunters. And again, a choice for all resident to make.

Wil, I don't care what the original proposal was, nor any amendments that didn't find their way to the final bill. They didn't pass and are nothing more than talking points that have no bearing on anything. White noise essentially. What matters is the allocations prior to 196 and the allocations after.

 

[JFWRC]

LAST EDITED ON Jun-22-13 AT 03:33PM (MST)[p]johnleet3-I apologize for not recognizing your name.....could you please refresh me on when you were a client? Were you a non-resident?

We do go to Santa Fe......we do participate. I have no interest in the Caldera.....we have very very few clients that apply. I have personally hunted the Caldera. I have personally hunted Valle Vidal. I am impressed with how the Valle Vidal works. Although there is a huge difference and that is location near large metros. Could the Caldera work like Valle Vidal, maybe, maybe not. It would require a means of limiting access just due to the huge populations surrounding it. That is problematic. However, I do believe it should be done prior to allowing management to be given to the NPS. There are many folks that feel very strongly the same way......including but not limited to our very own Game and Fish. Did you see the vote of the commission? Did you read the organizations that signed on against the bill.

I am hoping some of the employees of the Caldera will chime in to describe the waste. I know some have heard the rumors......

Jason mentions a $100K insurance policy. That seems huge to me. I know our liability insurance with a good umbrella is based on gross sales @ $24/1,000 of sales. Based on his number, that would equate to roughly $4,200,000 in gross sales. If a ranch can't work on that type of gross.......there is gross mis management. Fix that first before we give up and give it to an agency that our own Game Commission is very much against for various reasons.

This whole deal smells of waste and now we are going to burden taxpayers more with the NPS control. There is an agenda here.....believe me.

Jim

 

[Jeremy]

Jim,

Calling someone a liar is a serious accusation, and I hope you will be more careful in making that accusation. One thing you'll learn about NMWF is that we are very careful about research and accuracy -- if we do make a mistake we are sure to correct it. Below is concrete proof.

Your memory might have failed (mine often does) or you might not have even realized it at the time, but the original law that was passed did not allow any DIY non-residents. It started when Michael Sanchez introduced a bill for a simple 10 percent non-resident cap in 1996.

http://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/96 Regular/bills/senate/SB0193.pdf

That bill was amended so non-residents were required to hire an outfitter (and a few were required to go with a resident who did not have to be a registered outfitter). I've talked to people who where at the legislature when it happened and someone who worked for the Game and Fish Department who fielded angry phone calls about it from non-residents who did not want to have to hire an outfitter. If you'd like the history I'd be happy to provide you with some names you can talk to who have good memory of how the amendment came about.

The amendments made the original outfitter set-aside 17 percent and another 3 percent of non-residents had to find a resident to hunt with who did not have to be a registered outfitter. That 17 percent is where we started and what has been getting scaled back ever since.

Following a lot of outcry, in 1997 Michael Sanchez introduced legislation to eliminate the 17 percent outfitter set-aside, but again the bill was amended. The set-aside was preserved, but it got scaled back to 12 percent instead. Below is the exact text of what became law in 1996, before the 78-12-10 allocation.

Original law:

[(1) seventeen percent of the licenses shall be issued to nonresidents. Except for antelope and javelina licenses, each nonresident applicant shall, at the time of submission of the application for the license, sign the application and identify the registration number of the New Mexico registered outfitter who will be used with the hunting party that includes the nonresident. The nonresident shall be required to contract for outfitting services with the New Mexico registered outfitter identified in the application. Except for antelope and javelina licenses, the nonresident shall not be allowed to hunt with a license issued from a drawing for a hunt on public lands without utilizing and being physically accompanied on the hunt by the New Mexico registered outfitter identified in the application, or one of that outfitter's guides; provided, however, that this requirement shall not apply to lands under the control of the federal military if the military objects to it. In a hunt covered by this paragraph that requires a New Mexico registered guide, there shall be at least one New Mexico registered guide or outfitter accompanying every four or fewer nonresident hunters;

But don't take my word for it. Below is a link to the full text of the bill that attempted to eliminate the set-aside in 1997 but fell short (you can tell what was existing law because it has a line through it). The quota stuff starts on page 12

http://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/97 Regular/bills/senate/SB0430.pdf

I'll see if I can post a graph of the resident allocation through time next week.

I'm getting a little tired of the back and forth here, Jim. I might be a lot of things, but a liar is not one of them. I like facts and like to research. If you apologize for calling me a liar I'd be happy to buy you a beer. And thanks for reaching out via email.

Jeremy

 

[ELKMAN]

This is classic!

Jimbo, is the best used car salesman in NM! I meant sales of elk tags. There is always an agenda!

 

[Jeremy]

NM Paul,

I got so fired up about Jim calling me a liar, that I missed your question. The Caldera is about $3.6 million in the red annually. What happens is it has a special line item earmarked so that congress can help make up the shortfall of the "self-sufficiency" experiment. The Caldera line item is officially under the Forest Service budget, hence the misunderstanding by a lot of people back east who think the Forest Service manages the Caldera today.

The Caldera allocation is typically set at $0 by the administration's recommendation to congress. That is not because the administration really wants to defund the Caldera, but because they know the NM delegation will fight to get it where it should be, and they want their budget proposal to be as low as possible to look good politically (The Bush Administration did the same thing). But it is a dangerous game that could leave the VCNP high and dry at any time. It creates a pretty tough job for our congressional delegation too, who have to try and convince other members of congress that our special 89,000 acres is more special than all the public lands in their states that do not get special line items earmarked in the budget.

The email Jim posted talks about the $300,000 raised by the hunts (including the turkey hunts going for over $1,000 each) -- but that is a far cry from $3.6 million. We've been pointing out for years now as we've fought for affordable resident opportunity at the Caldera that charging high dollar access fees to all hunters still would not make a dent in the shortfall.

Probably way more info than you were looking for, but we've been in this issue pretty deep. Like I said, always feel free to call, email or stop by the office as well.

[email protected]

Jeremy

 

[TOPGUN]

"I'm getting a little tired of the back and forth here, Jim. I might be a lot of things, but a liar is not one of them. I like facts and like to research. If you apologize for calling me a liar I'd be happy to buy you a beer. And thanks for reaching out via email."
Jeremy


***Maybe someone shouldn't come on this website if they don't want to get raked over the coals on a subject that most members here have a completely different viewpoint on than you and your organization!!!

 

[wilhille]

Topgun,
A healthy debate is a little bit different than calling someone a liar.

 

[JFWRC]

I'm getting a little tired of the back and forth here, Jim. I might be a lot of things, but a liar is not one of them. I like facts and like to research. If you apologize for calling me a liar I'd be happy to buy you a beer. And thanks for reaching out via email.

Jeremy-Please accept my sincerest apology. I should have done better research. No excuse. Honestly, I forgot about 17% original bill and YOU WERE RIGHT, I was wrong.

Jim

 

[Jeremy]

Jim,

I owe you a beer.

Jeremy

 

[JFWRC]

No you don't.....it's on me. I will still bring Tums and Rolaids.

Jim

 

[NMPaul]

3.6 Million?????

How the hell do you spend $4 Mill????

If that is what they are in the red, I assume that they must be grossing around $500K.

I do not see them getting there by trimming the fat.

I definitely have my concerns about NPS status. Sounds like we need to get some viable and relevant options elevated to the same level as the NPS option.

Not much time left.

 

[bulls1]

I don't post here often anymore because it feels like hollering sh@; down a well, but I have to now. Even though I don't agree with either one of you completely on this and some other subjects. The last three posts show the size of the men behind them and for that reason you both have my respect. I really feel like if a person could ever get all of the groups together around a campfire agreements could easily be reached. At that point g&f and the legislature would be putty in your hands! If you all ever decide to meet around that fire I would love an invitation.

Jason B

 

[NMPaul]

LAST EDITED ON Jun-22-13 AT 09:23PM (MST)[p]>I don't post here often anymore
>because it feels like hollering
>sh@; down a well, but
>I have to now. Even
>though I don't agree with
>either one of you completely
>on this and some other
>subjects. The last three posts
>show the size of the
>men behind them and for
>that reason you both have
>my respect. I really feel
>like if a person could
>ever get all of the
>groups together around a campfire
>agreements could easily be reached.
>At that point g&f and
>the legislature would be putty
>in your hands! If
>you all ever decide to
>meet around that fire I
>would love an invitation.
>
>Jason B

Completely agree.

I think that all those organizations listed (even the ruffed grouse guys could come )should send a representative to a meeting with the Valle Caldera as the topic.
Discuss the options and prioritize a few.
Go back to their respective organizations and then meet again as a group.

In the second meeting come to a consensus and then approach the legislature with the plan. As a collective group, it should warrant the credibility to be taken seriously.

If your organization cannot be part of the solution, then they need to stay out of it.

Any group that cannot work with other groups for the greater good need to be exposed and individuals should stop funding to them.

 

[wilhille]

I agree as well. Hopefully that beer will be bought soon, and something positive will come out of it.
I really don't know how I feel about this yet. I don't want to see it turned into unit 6 though.

 

[Gator]

So where is all the money leaking out at, No way can the bill be that high without huge salarys some where you must have $100,000 guys that are doing $40,000 work or way to damn many of them.
Check the books find the leak is the thing YOU BOTH should be doing.

"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/]

 

[hank4elk]

We do need to have all groups come together to save it. I have never had the pleasure to hunt it,but had great hunts in 6a &6c.
I visit when ever in the area.
The $ is being wasted on the board and top heavy staff and bad projects.
I came in 2nd for Recreation Supervisor twice, and saw the folks they hired later. The job was very good pay and entailed coordinating the hunts,fishing, hikes ,tours,etc...or taking the folks out yourself.Maintenance and projects during and in off seasons. Very hands on and physically demanding from job discription.
I stayed in touch with one of the original ranch hands and he pointed them out,"Wanna see who beat you?". One was a very overweight out of shape woman(FS transfer), who lost her breath walking from a van to the office, the other was someone who had no idea of what hunting was about.
Too many Chiefs and not enough real workers,IMHO. A ranch that size is alot of work,and a Preserve is even more. But doable. Can't afford to waste $ on beurocricies...or poor projects.

 

[cosmic_cowboy]

Jeremy
Thanks for giving us some numbers. 3.6 mill in the red ?? That's 10K a day!!!!
I can see this happening the first couple years but not every year.
Do you have a breakdown of where this money is going ?
It can't be all going to (over paid employees) There has to be something fundamentally wrong with the management.

CC

 

[NMPaul]

Jack, I think it is pointless now. I have run enough businesses to know that if they are that upside down, you cannot trim enough fat to make a difference.

You would need a complete change of guard.

Something has to change, the question is what.

Hank, that is the nature of a government run entity.

Sounds like the VC was nice while it lasted. As a public property, it will be difficult to be maintained in its present state.

Someone mentioned above the porous borders compared to the Valle Vidal.

With the lack of wardens, it will be hard to police.

 

[cosmic_cowboy]

Paul
They seem to be able to police it now...Maybe that's where some of the money is going.
The VV borders public land on the west side and they don't have a major problem with guys jumping the fence.I'm sure it dose happen but you can't totally secure any property.

CC

 

[Maxhunts]

LAST EDITED ON Jun-23-13 AT 10:03AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jun-23-13 AT 09:59?AM (MST)

Jim,
Your tactic of causing a conflict between RMEF and NMWF is crazy and immature. Your argument has taken on another meaning and you are just taking shots at an organization who's sole purpose is protecting the rights of public hunters and anglers. NMWF's reputation can't be hurt by your malicious attacks, New Mexico resident hunters and anglers can see through all of those rough words that you're hurt because you've gotten used to getting your way all the time and things are changing. This is not a battle between RMEF and NMWF. Both organizations have worked together on a ton of legislation, both organizations have been successful in moving legislation forward that makes sense. Quit using RMEF against NMWF. I'm surprised you haven't been put in check by someone in charge at RMEF. S 285 is a true Sportsmen's bill and it makes sense. Does it bother you that much that Residents of NM and hunters and anglers of average financial means are on a level playing field with hunters and anglers greater financial means because of the work that NMWF has done to ensure this? C mon man....

 

[WapitiBob]

Has anybody provided positive comment on this bill other than the office staff?

 

[JFWRC]

Maxhunts-Welcome to MM!

Great first post.

This is not a battle between RMEF and NMWF? Yes-You are right.....I forgot there are at least 24 others opposed to the legislation as well including the NM Dept of Game and Fish. I can repost the SCI letter if you'd like as well. I will get the letter that shows the other 24 posted again as well.

Quit using RMEF against NMWF-They wrote the letter. I guess they should retract it because they are wrong. I will let them know if you haven't already.

Does it bother you that much that Residents of NM and hunters and anglers of average financial means are on a level playing field with hunters and anglers greater financial means because of the work that NMWF has done to ensure this? No-I think its great.....keep up the good work!

Thanks for sharing your thoughts Max.

Jim

 

[TOPGUN]

Interesting thread in that it's just about like ones where we're talking about the SFW and people come out of the woodwork that have never been on this site to make their posts. Before this one is over it looks like every staff member and Director will have made a post or three here, but I guess they have to earn their money some way!

 

[Maxhunts]

WapitiBOB,

Yes, a Senate Bipartisan Energy and Natural Resources Committee saw the positivity in S 285. They had many positive comments about the bill, that's why it passed. What a novel idea that both sides of the isle can come together on something that makes so much sense. This is what we do WB, we wholeheartedly support positive legislation that positively affects the New Mexican resident hunting and fishing community.

 

[WapitiBob]

Actually, I was inquiring about the sportsmen that are the recipients of this "sportsmans bill". I have to wonder just how good this thing is when the beneficiaries don't even provide positive comment.

 

[Gator]

I'm in check.
Can't be on the board without a post or 2. LOL

"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/]