Senate Bill 312 SB NM

Lonepine

Member
Messages
26
Did anyone else notice who drafted and is pushing this bill?

Wildearth Guardians and Defenders of Wildlife

These 2 groups are not hunting or conservation organizations.

Regardless of what side of the great tag debate you fall on, this is not a good bill for sportsmen or conservation.

Senate Bill 312 Fact Sheet

Changes mission of game and fish.

Shifts to focus on all wildlife species as opposed to game.

Wildlife is defined in the bill as any species including wolves, reptiles, jumping mouse etc.

Endangered and other wildlife species are already managed by the USFWS and covered under the ESA.

Bill was created with broad support of environmental non hunting groups.

Defenders of Wildlife was instrumental in pushing for reintroduction of wolves in Colorado

Defenders is a continued player in filing lawsuits continuing to keep grizzlies and wolves on the endangered species list and out of state management in the Northern Rockies. Even though both are well above management objectives.

Wildearth Guardians was instrumental in lawsuit regarding Mexican Spotted Owl and shutting down our national forest operations.

NM Wild and Sierra Club have aspects of them that may be good, but again, they are not hunting groups. And are pro wolf.

Not sure about the others.

There were no other sportsmen’s groups supporting this bill or involved in the writing of this bill.

Changes name of Game and Fish to Wildlife Conservation with a cost of at least $1 million to the general taxpayer.

General Taxpayer will need to provide funding of $1 million per year for species of management concern.

Eliminates outfitter pool and 48 hour requirement. This could force the outfitters to compete, however, not sure of any positive impacts to resident hunting opportunity.

Eliminates Jennings Law (although I can figure out where this exact wording is in the bill).

Expands NM definition of waste of game to prohibit leaving edible parts of bear, cougar and javelina in the field.

Designates commissioners to be appointed from various counties through New Mexico on an equitable basis.

Gives commission full authority to protect species of greatest concern and do whatever is necessary to protect.

Outdoor Recreation Board

The monies to pay for wildlife species and game species appear to be mixed. Thus a wildlife conservation fund is set up but is funded by licensed hunters and anglers.



Original legislation

Gives commission complete authority to manage game populations in the state including setting population objectives and bag limits.

Commission has full power to close hunting seasons due to fire danger, full authority to set all rules related to game and fish, permitting of outfitters and protected species, etc.

Language appears to give game and fish the authority to authorize game parks behind closed fences and allows the wildlife to be owned by the property owner.
 
I could get on board with getting rid of the Jennings' law.
I also think the edible parts of Javelina should have to be retrieved.
Not much of a fan of most of the other suggestions.
 
I haven't read it yet, but if this is true "Gives Commission full authority to protect species of greatest concern and do whatever is necessary to protect." then the Commission, who continues to be made up of appointed positions farther and farther removed from hunting, will be obliged to protect the species of greatest concern (e.g. wolves) and do whatever is necessary to protect (e.g. reduce hunter tags because the elk need to be saved for wolves, eliminate coyote hunting because someone might shoot a wolf, eliminate trapping because someone might catch a wolf...)
 
I haven't read it yet, but if this is true "Gives Commission full authority to protect species of greatest concern and do whatever is necessary to protect." then the Commission, who continues to be made up of appointed positions farther and farther removed from hunting, will be obliged to protect the species of greatest concern (e.g. wolves) and do whatever is necessary to protect (e.g. reduce hunter tags because the elk need to be saved for wolves, eliminate coyote hunting because someone might shoot a wolf, eliminate trapping because someone might catch a wolf...)

Here's a link to the Bill: https://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/21 Regular/bills/senate/SB0312.pdf
 
Start a go fund me to defeat it?....put the message up there why?
If guys dont start to stand up then they will railroad it!
Idk I'm a dumb ass....It just seems if you give an inch they take a mile.
 
Got an email today from NM Wildlife Federation asking me to contact my senator, telling them they need to support passage of this garbage so residents will get more tags. Nah, I'll do just the opposite. These people aren't even trying to hide their views anymore.
 
I checked in with an acquaintance of mine who has been very involved with all past hunting issues. (e.g. instituting the quota for all species; rounding tags to residents per the legal statute instead of to NR, etc.). He says the motive for the libs driving the bill is to get rid of Jennings Law. The elimination of outfitter/guided pool is a rider that is viewed as steering tags to the wealthy, which doesn't fit the progressive narrative. So despite it seeming "odd" that more liberal groups are pushing it, Jennings Law and Guided Pool are the targeted items. Despite being leery, I've been opposed to both of those issues for years...
 
Screenshot (1).png


Here is where this can become a slippery slope. By delineating away from Game and Fish species being the focus of the agency. It opens Pandora's Box on where the funds from tag fees can go. That is how I personally see it. I am going to contact a few people who are more knowledgeable than I to check on it.
 
elkfanatic: I echo your concern. However the reality is funds raised from tag fees are currently allocated to NMDGF by the State. NMDGF requests a budget; but they only get whatever is allocated to them. Any $ above their allocation rolls into the General Fund and therefore gets used for wherever the State is spending $. And to date NMDGF always brings in more $ then they are allocated. So "our" tag fees are already being used for a bunch of hare-brained schemes...
 
The Game and Fish does not have to put any money into the General Fund I don't believe. Don't quote me. But since they're a self funded organization through tag fees, they don't have to contribute to the general fund. I believe that was why they have tried to combine it with parks in the previous years.
 
Also the main reason I have seen for concern is the economics. It's going to short money a lot. If they wanted to change the structure of tag allocations they should have raised every non resident tag fee because the increase in elk tags isn't going to make up the deficit from less nonresident tags being in the draw.
 
I challenge folks to read the bill and consider what is being attempted here. Reads like a coup of NM sportsmen.
Will we willingly give in to the enviros and their agenda for a few more tags? A negligible increase in odds?

Regardless of what I think about Jennings law and outfitter allocations this is not the appropriate vehicle to do it.

If this is your fight make it a stand alone bill.

I see this as a thinly veiled attempt to take control of nmdgf and tranform it into something much different. Once nmdgf becomes the "conservation agency", NM sportsmen, who solely fund the agency, lose their spot at the table.

What happens to our voice in directing how our funds are spent? Suddenly license and tag fees are being used to reintroduce more wolves, protect mice and further the cause of other special interests? I don't think so

Don't take the bait. What's the promise of a few more resident tags worth if we no longer manage game to hunt and fish to catch? Not much. We can all sit around w/ tags in our pockets bsing about the good ol days.
 
I'm a nonresident and wouldn't mind switching from 6% of the tags to 10% to remove the guide pool. It will probably decrease my odds on everything I apply for but don't like the preferential treatment for the "guide draw". An extra 6% of tags for residents would probably only be 2% or 4% increase because there are also many residents that apply in the guide draw.

The rest of this bill is garbage and I hope it doesn't get passed.
 
Index of what the proposed bill entails. Even as a nonres I support a 90/10 split. Just wish my own state, Colo, could stop with the outfitter and landowner welfare vouchers and tags and stop dedicating such a high percent of what is left to a nonresident pool. 10% for nonresidents is fair (and I am a nonresident for most of my hunts.) Tags should almost exclusively be doled out via a draw and not via landowner tags.

Not part of the bill but wiping out the Eplus tags in addition to a hard 90/10 split would benefit ALL hunters res and nonres alike.

If a landowner hosts significant wildlife they can easily make $$ charging for access rather than selling vouchers.

Key to SB312.jpg
 
A few years ago they went from global warming to climate change. Word games. Because they got tired of being wrong.
this is the wrong bill. Letting the communists get their hands on hunting decisions could not be a worse decision.
 
Not part of the bill but wiping out the Eplus tags in would benefit ALL hunters res and nonres alike.
A completely inaccurate and uninformed statement filled with nothing but feelings, emotions, and an obvious bias towards landowners. I guess there should be no compensation to landowners that feed and water the elk herd. It isn’t all public land out there you know. Make sure you let the locals know your views on that subject the next time you are down there, I am sure you will have an open invite to their dinner tables.
 
I get emails from the NM Wildlife Federation all the time talking about their mission to reduce the number of non-resident hunters in New Mexico. When the feds look to reduce hunting opportunities on federal land the hunters in the western states will not have enough horse to stop it and frankly non-resident hunters will not really care (or we will support it - at least I could go look for sheds) because they were excluded from hunting on our federal lands years earlier. I am 50 so I am not to worried - I think there will be ample opportunity for the next 10-20 years but after that I wonder.
 
I'm a nonresident and wouldn't mind switching from 6% of the tags to 10% to remove the guide pool. It will probably decrease my odds on everything I apply for but don't like the preferential treatment for the "guide draw". An extra 6% of tags for residents would probably only be 2% or 4% increase because there are also many residents that apply in the guide draw.

The rest of this bill is garbage and I hope it doesn't get passed.
You realize your odds would go down right? The guide pool folks will still apply so instead of splitting them apart the same number of people
Will apply for 10% of the tags vs 14%. There aren’t many residents applying in the guide draw. The whole bill is garbage.
 
You realize your odds would go down right? The guide pool folks will still apply so instead of splitting them apart the same number of people
Will apply for 10% of the tags vs 14%. There aren’t many residents applying in the guide draw. The whole bill is garbage.
Yes, I realize my odds will likely be decreased for everything I apply for in NM. I have never like the idea of guaranteed tags only for outfitters and think that 10% of the tags for nonresidents is fair enough.

I don't support this bill as it is written and hope it doesn't pass.
 
"The bill has garnered support from a broad coalition of New Mexico hunting and conservation groups, including the New Mexico Wildlife Federation, Hispanics Enjoying Camping Hunting and the Outdoors (HECHO), Nuestra Tierra Conservation Project, Southwest Environmental Center, Animal Protection Voters, New Mexico Wilderness Alliance, Audubon Southwest, WildEarth Guardians, Defenders of Wildlife, and the Rio Grande Chapter of the Sierra Club."
 
You realize your odds would go down right? The guide pool folks will still apply so instead of splitting them apart the same number of people
Will apply for 10% of the tags vs 14%. There aren’t many residents applying in the guide draw. The whole bill is garbage.
Well since he did say that his odds would go down I believe yes he indeed knows they will go down ?
 
So one of the biggest groups in opposition of the "Right to Hunt and Fish Constitutional Amendment" is the wildlife federation. Interesting once again, but yet they say they speak for the sportsmen of the State. Such bull.
 
A completely inaccurate and uninformed statement filled with nothing but feelings, emotions, and an obvious bias towards landowners. I guess there should be no compensation to landowners that feed and water the elk herd. It isn’t all public land out there you know. Make sure you let the locals know your views on that subject the next time you are down there, I am sure you will have an open invite to their dinner tables.


Not part of the bill but wiping out the Eplus tags in addition to a hard 90/10 split would benefit ALL hunters res and nonres alike.
That would depend on what is meant by "benefit".

Ask next time instead of wading in over your head...
 
If you Oppose this bill, here is a challenge. If you recieved the Wildlife Federation email to support this bill, then you are in this challenge. Click on their email button but the challenge is to change as few of words to make it an oppose letter instead. Fun challenge and the Wildlife Federation is a bcc on the email so they will get it. Hopefully wake up the wildlife federation also that they are being exposed. Make sure to change the subject line, that is really as far as most legislators will look anyway. It was a fun challenge.
 
If you Oppose this bill, here is a challenge. If you recieved the Wildlife Federation email to support this bill, then you are in this challenge. Click on their email button but the challenge is to change as few of words to make it an oppose letter instead. Fun challenge and the Wildlife Federation is a bcc on the email so they will get it. Hopefully wake up the wildlife federation also that they are being exposed. Make sure to change the subject line, that is really as far as most legislators will look anyway. It was a fun challenge.
Did it before you even mentioned it. Also sign the petition!
 
Haha. Did the same too before I saw your challenge. Glad to see others are of the same mind. I changed it around a bit and left NMWF on bcc. Here’s the text of what I sent:

DO NOT Support SB312
Esteemed Chair and Members of Senate Conservation Committee,

Please vote NO on Senate Bill 312

I am a lifelong NM hunter and resident, and I do not support Senate Bill 312. Although touted by some groups as a way to bring fairness back to the big game draw, the full content and context of the bill is over-reaching. Those talking points, expounded by groups like the New Mexico Wildlife Federation, are used as a means of evoking an emotional response from stakeholders and divert attention from the other harmful provisions in this bill.

One such provision in this bill is to change the name of the NM Department of Game and Fish to a conservation committee. That is meant to shift the focus from the NMDGF’s targeted and focused charter (i.e.game AND fish) to a larger less focused entity. Game and fish conservation is already a part of the NMDGF’s charter, but expanding that to all non-game species will only dilute NMDGF’s already limited resources to the detriment of New Mexico’s longstanding hunting traditions.
 
Haha. Did the same too before I saw your challenge. Glad to see others are of the same mind. I changed it around a bit and left NMWF on bcc. Here’s the text of what I sent:

DO NOT Support SB312
Esteemed Chair and Members of Senate Conservation Committee,

Please vote NO on Senate Bill 312

I am a lifelong NM hunter and resident, and I do not support Senate Bill 312. Although touted by some groups as a way to bring fairness back to the big game draw, the full content and context of the bill is over-reaching. Those talking points, expounded by groups like the New Mexico Wildlife Federation, are used as a means of evoking an emotional response from stakeholders and divert attention from the other harmful provisions in this bill.

One such provision in this bill is to change the name of the NM Department of Game and Fish to a conservation committee. That is meant to shift the focus from the NMDGF’s targeted and focused charter (i.e.game AND fish) to a larger less focused entity. Game and fish conservation is already a part of the NMDGF’s charter, but expanding that to all non-game species will only dilute NMDGF’s already limited resources to the detriment of New Mexico’s longstanding hunting traditions.
That is damn well written.
 
Another question, one that I have not seen asked.
How are counties like Taos going to make up the revenue lost if Gross Receipts Tax (ie.,sales tax) goes down?
"*** Current New Mexico Sales Tax will be added to all Private and Draw Hunt Pricing. " This quote comes straight from USO's page. Now I am NO friend of theirs but how much sales tax will be lost at the rural county level if outfitters are not selling hunts?
From a 2015 GOHUNT article: "Outfitters pay New Mexico gross receipts tax on each hunt that is sold, equating to an industry total of approximately $3.5 million annually."
 
Don’t forget to factor in the economic impact of having fewer non-residents paying “local” outfitters and guides for guided hunts. This will lead to fewer jobs for residents of NM and less revenue going through the state. That has to amount to some serious money.
 
Did anyone else notice who drafted and is pushing this bill?

Wildearth Guardians and Defenders of Wildlife

These 2 groups are not hunting or conservation organizations.

Regardless of what side of the great tag debate you fall on, this is not a good bill for sportsmen or conservation.

Senate Bill 312 Fact Sheet

Changes mission of game and fish.

Shifts to focus on all wildlife species as opposed to game.

Wildlife is defined in the bill as any species including wolves, reptiles, jumping mouse etc.

Endangered and other wildlife species are already managed by the USFWS and covered under the ESA.

Bill was created with broad support of environmental non hunting groups.

Defenders of Wildlife was instrumental in pushing for reintroduction of wolves in Colorado

Defenders is a continued player in filing lawsuits continuing to keep grizzlies and wolves on the endangered species list and out of state management in the Northern Rockies. Even though both are well above management objectives.

Wildearth Guardians was instrumental in lawsuit regarding Mexican Spotted Owl and shutting down our national forest operations.

NM Wild and Sierra Club have aspects of them that may be good, but again, they are not hunting groups. And are pro wolf.

Not sure about the others.

There were no other sportsmen’s groups supporting this bill or involved in the writing of this bill.

Changes name of Game and Fish to Wildlife Conservation with a cost of at least $1 million to the general taxpayer.

General Taxpayer will need to provide funding of $1 million per year for species of management concern.

Eliminates outfitter pool and 48 hour requirement. This could force the outfitters to compete, however, not sure of any positive impacts to resident hunting opportunity.

Eliminates Jennings Law (although I can figure out where this exact wording is in the bill).

Expands NM definition of waste of game to prohibit leaving edible parts of bear, cougar and javelina in the field.

Designates commissioners to be appointed from various counties through New Mexico on an equitable basis.

Gives commission full authority to protect species of greatest concern and do whatever is necessary to protect.

Outdoor Recreation Board

The monies to pay for wildlife species and game species appear to be mixed. Thus a wildlife conservation fund is set up but is funded by licensed hunters and anglers.



Original legislation

Gives commission complete authority to manage game populations in the state including setting population objectives and bag limits.

Commission has full power to close hunting seasons due to fire danger, full authority to set all rules related to game and fish, permitting of outfitters and protected species, etc.

Language appears to give game and fish the authority to authorize game parks behind closed fences and allows the wildlife to be owned by the property owner.

I could not agree more, I recently received an email from NMWLF. All you have to do is “click here” to show your support for SB312. Instead of clicking to support I isolated all the email address and voiced my concerns for the pending legislation. With all the COVID restrictions we have little recourse available to us while the bill is in committee. I hope this list helps on that front. Voice your concerns my fellow New Mexicans; things are getting scarier.

1613706604311.jpeg


P.S. any time special interests get involved, we as sportsmen rarely benefit. Stay frosty.
 
Dodge a bullet, good win for the good guys, but them Nature Nazis will be back. They will tweak and re-write the bill and you will see it again next legislative session. They will keep striking while the dems are in control.

Now turn your focus to the banning trapping bill, that one is still moving. These anti's are death from a 1000 cuts, don't let you guard down, stay involved
 
Dodge a bullet, good win for the good guys, but them Nature Nazis will be back. They will tweak and re-write the bill and you will see it again next legislative session. They will keep striking while the dems are in control.

Now turn your focus to the banning trapping bill, that one is still moving. These anti's are death from a 1000 cuts, don't let you guard down, stay involved
The trapping bill will be more difficult because of the negativity presented based on pets getting caught...
 
Ok so call me crazy but here is a suggestion for the future. I decided to take a break from all the name calling and party bashing and I called Mr Nathan Small. He is one of the main authors of the bill. We had a very pleasant conversation where he listened to some concerns I had, and I listened to what he had to say. I agree that this bill will be back next session for sure. But perhaps we can take an approach where we are not trying to react to the bill once it is introduced, but work with them and change or modify it. I’m sorry but I feel like there has got to be another way than just talking about how Democrats are ruining our state. Some of you may think I’m full of crap and that’s ok too.
 
Did Mr. Small mention why he thought Game and Fish needed to be rebranded to the Division of Wildlife? Unless I’m missing something,that does not benefit hunters and anglers in any possible way.
 
This one may not be done, rumor is that they amended SB 312 and it is back on the schedule for Saturday. Usually once tabled they hardly every make a return, but they want this one heard again I guess.
 
This one may not be done, rumor is that they amended SB 312 and it is back on the schedule for Saturday. Usually once tabled they hardly every make a return, but they want this one heard again I guess.
If that's the case, it is for a diabolical purpose that will provide no good for anyone except those who are pushing it...
 
I could get on board with getting rid of the Jennings' law.
I also think the edible parts of Javelina should have to be retrieved.
Not much of a fan of most of the other suggestions.
I got some Javi marinating now.

Will the Jumping mice and lizards be subjected to the NR quota?
 
This one may not be done, rumor is that they amended SB 312 and it is back on the schedule for Saturday. Usually once tabled they hardly every make a return, but they want this one heard again I guess.
Emailed the committee today, again, in opposition with reasons of unnecessary cost and the influx of big tourism business that does not have the best interest of NM wildlife and habitat in mind.
 
I heard the same. So this means they feel they have the votes, they will remove something that was that stalled. From what I heard, the name change and Jennings law they were all in favor. It was the non res quota and/ or E plus system.

Smalls isn’t bad guy when you talk to him, but his agenda isn’t good. Steinborn is anti and just plain against game and fish and hunters.

What a joke the experts who testified were, the G& F director didn’t even know their own rules and said outfitters weren’t allowed on WSMR and federal land. It don’t look good when you have that kind of incompetence representing hunters
 
Lots of inaccurate or bad information passed during that zoom call. All to further an agenda. They really like to say AZ limits NR’s to 10% but they don’t mention CO or WY’s tag allocations.
 
The trapping bill will be more difficult because of the negativity presented based on pets getting caught...
They forget to mention that those pets caught , the owners have broken the law as pets MUST be on a leash and since they obviously are not , they are running off into the areas legal traps are set. How funny how they skip the broken law part of the pet owner...
 
sorry if this was discussed but are the crazies really trying to make it illegal for anyone 12 and under to handle a firearm? no doubt they want to delay people getting involved in the shooting sports.

My question is, what if my 12 year old identifies as an 20 year old? would he be protected? lol f-ing crazy world. I should have been born 200 years ago.
 

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