Terk Overturned

[NMPaul]

>Paul,
>It is nothing personal, I have
>helped you in the past
>and will do it again
>in the future, as I
>am sure you would.
>This is about the most
>fundamental principle of American law.
> I paid for something
>that was advertised as X,
>midway through, after incurring many
>costs, the rules change and
>I do not receive any
>benefit from the money spent.
> That is a taking.
> I don't care if
>it was only $1.
>It is still a taking.
>
>___________________________________
>
>You stated in two earlier posts:
>
>"Having a few grand tied up
>on a credit card for
>2 months is not damages.
>
>Interest??? $50 ????
>
>Most transaction fees on Credit card
>cash advances are a one
>time fee of 3% or
>4% and 0% apr. Or
>if you just charged it,
>unless you are in really
>bad standings it would be
>12-14% apr for the length
>of time you have the
>money out. Maybe a couple
>hundred bucks."
>_____________________________
>A business person will file in
>court and/or put a very
>dark mark on your credit
>record for a very small
>(never insignificant) amount of money,
>all in an attempt to
>compel you to make a
>payment that is just and
>owed. The government is
>even worse about chasing down
>a very small amount of
>money it perceives to be
>owed, and will spend thousands
>to recoup pennies. That
>is how serious this taking
>is by NM G&F supported
>by an unreasoned legal opinion
>by the AG's office.
>
>Will I sue to get my
>money back-no it would cost
>thousands to recoup $200-I am
>not the government. But
>the State of NM can
>and should rethink the draw.
>
>
>Screw me once, shame on you.
> Screw me twice, shame
>on me. I ain;t
>gonna be shamed.


Jim, a couple things. We are not on opposite sides of this issue.
I think we both agree it is a mess.

This was a court decision, not a NMGF decision. This was not an intentional "screwing".

My comments in regards to damages in the correct context were when everyone was screaming sue, law suit etc....

My point was the damages did not warrant a lawsuit, just basing it on common sense. Not to say that all lawsuits originate with common sense.

I am under the understanding that the court chose the timing of the decision.

I apply in other states and I would be pissed also about this if I was in a NR shoes. However, who do you focus your anger at is the question??

In this post the anger has been directed towards NMGF (not their fault), the residents (yep, go back and see how many poster were mad at the residents), we got into federal land, state land who the animals belong to etc.

Bottom line, it was just the poor timing of events, due to a legal decision. NMGF, is trying to do damage control for something that was dropped in their lap.

Sorry that you have taken offense to my posts. I hope you can see my points.

 

[headbones]

To me, this decision has killed my dream of an affordable, free-range ibex hunt. Why should residents get a better chance to hunt a species found no where else in U.S., free range, mostly on public-federal land? Save my money for an expensive middle east hunt or pet goat from Texas? JW

 

[greatwestern]

^Hmmm...perhaps because the New Mexico Dept. of Game and Fish introduced them here?? Eh?

Goddamn, this thread is the perfect example of why I generally avoid the New Mexico forum

Though I am certainly glad that the majority (not all) of the Nonresident posters here do NOT represent the general attitude of most of our valued NR guests that enjoy and appreciate the privilege to have the opportunity (whatever the 'quota') to hunt here

Oh, but YAY!! My sheep odds just went up less than one half of one percent

Like I said, Goddamn

 

[abqbw]

Hey, I think all 6,000 people that applied for sheep have posted on this thread. Cool. We are all here.

 

[wymoosehunter]

Paul,
I think we are on the same side. I myself was not clear on a couple issues. The first, is that NM GF did not, could not, and was not in control of the timing. Additionally, my anger is definitely not at resident hunters or frankly, even the fact that I am excluded from applying.
My anger is directed at NM G&F, and their piss-poor planning for this event, compounded by the terrible legal advice that GF leadership must have received from in-house counsel and/or the AG's office on how to resolve the problem associated with NR's sudden exclusion, and GF's incredibly inept, knee jerk implementation and advertising (really, providing an incorrect telephone number in the press release-just friken stupid) of the event and solution.
NM G&F knew there was a lawsuit that could impact the draw, so they should have planned on how to implement, revise, change, or just plain start over should a decision be made at any time, and frankly for every contingency.
Once you are in a whole, stop digging. Fix the problem and move one. Now NM G&F needs to fix the problem of NRs incurring expenses for which they received absolutely no consideration. Simple, but hard to find a solution, but that is the government's problem, not anyone who has incurred an expense, and certainly not mine-but I want my money back, simply based on principle.
Thanks,
WyMo

 

[crazeymaez]

>To me, this decision has killed
>my dream of an affordable,
>free-range ibex hunt. Why should
>residents get a better chance
>to hunt a species found
>no where else in U.S.,
>free range, mostly on public-federal
>land? Save my money for
>an expensive middle east hunt
>or pet goat from Texas?
>JW


Try Terkministan huge Ibex in that part of the world.

 

[jbone]

I am quite surprised as to the pure volume of outcries from nonresidents on the Terk issue.

Why don't you lobby G&F for eliminating the outfitter allowance for tags (10%)? Wouldn?t you get more tags?

Why don't you lobby for more access to federal lands across the west? Wouldn?t you get more access to lands to hunt as well as possibly increase the # of tags available to draw?

Why don't you lobby for more restrictions on the leasing of federal lands across the west (i.e., mandatory that established water tanks have water in it year around, mandated habitat improvements, etc.)? Wouldn?t you ultimately have more quantity and quality of wildlife populations thus increasing the possibility of additional tags to draw?

Why don't you lobby G&F on the issue of LO tags? Wouldn?t you get an increase in the # of tags available to draw?

Why don't you do something about the predators that impact our wildlife populations on a year around basis? Again, wouldn't this positively impact the very resources that you are concerned about?

As for the unique wildlife that NM has, especially oryx and ibex, these are state resources as dictated by the concept of the Public Trust Doctrine and backed by Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U.S. 519 (1896). There is nothing stopping any nonresident from moving to NM to live and pay state taxes (on a daily basis) as well as to contribute his/her time for the betterment of the habitat in NM in order to enjoy the state?s fine resources it has to offer. Nothing!!!

Instead of playing the system, why don't you proactively work for changing the system? You are either part of the problem or part of the solution. From my viewpoint, it would appear that the vast majority, not all, are part of the problem rather than part of the solution.



JBone

 

[NMPaul]

>Paul,
>I think we are on the
>same side. I myself
>was not clear on a
>couple issues. The first,
>is that NM GF did
>not, could not, and was
>not in control of the
>timing. Additionally, my anger
>is definitely not at resident
>hunters or frankly, even the
>fact that I am excluded
>from applying.
>My anger is directed at NM
>G&F, and their piss-poor planning
>for this event, compounded by
>the terrible legal advice that
>GF leadership must have received
>from in-house counsel and/or the
>AG's office on how to
>resolve the problem associated with
>NR's sudden exclusion, and GF's
>incredibly inept, knee jerk implementation
>and advertising (really, providing an
>incorrect telephone number in the
>press release-just friken stupid) of
>the event and solution.
>NM G&F knew there was a
>lawsuit that could impact the
>draw, so they should have
>planned on how to implement,
>revise, change, or just plain
>start over should a decision
>be made at any time,
>and frankly for every contingency.
>
>Once you are in a whole,
>stop digging. Fix the
>problem and move one.
>Now NM G&F needs to
>fix the problem of NRs
>incurring expenses for which they
>received absolutely no consideration.
>Simple, but hard to find
>a solution, but that is
>the government's problem, not anyone
>who has incurred an expense,
>and certainly not mine-but I
>want my money back, simply
>based on principle.
>Thanks,
>WyMo

Jim, cant disagree with any of that.

 

[abqbw]

JBone, your post is probably the most constructive one on the entire thread. Nonresident DIY hunters should represent themselves and changes that they want. Is it practical? No. But they would get plenty of support from residents. I don't think I have talked to any other resident that doesn't think the 6% nonres quota is too low. On the other hand I don't know many that think the 84% resident quota is too high because we are limited to 10% (max) across the board when we apply in other states in tag lotteries.

 

[outdoorsdude]

" Because I shelled out a significant amount of money"..... what, you automatically think that makes your position correct? NO! To you it is simply about your money.

The suspension of the injunction gives greater freedom, for tax paying residents of the state to draw a tag, on a limited state resource. So, yes it is about freedom; and you are either for it or against it.

 

[Iowan]

I love JBONES suggestions to lobby as non-residents to eliminate the outfitter 10% rule. As non-residents it is really clear that we have no voice with state legislators - pretty simple we do not vote so it has nothing to do with whether something is right or wrong - can they get re-elected is all that matters. Frankly as a non-resident the outfitters are the only allies we really have, they are at least a limited voice for us - yes I understand their motivation for representing non-residents and that if fine with me.

I am lucky to have found reasonably affordable ways to use the 10% outfitter rule in my favor and applying this 10% to Oryx and ibex may work in my favor - that does not make it right.

I do not apply for BHS as the odds are too long for the cost of applying. If you are a non-resident hoping to draw a BHS tag in New Mexico you do not even have a remote chance in the future - sucks for you guys - someone will add 'someone has to draw'. Keep in mind you odds were beyond a long shot to begin with. I am fortunate that I have found outfitters that charge reasonable amounts to apply through them and I have the resources to pay the additional amount to increase my draw odds and get some help in the field for two half days.

The ironic things is that in several cases (not BHS) this will improve your odds significantly applying through an outfitter and in many cases will lower odds for residents. If you do not believe me all you have to do is look at the draw results summary on the NMG and F website. I assumed a 30%/70% application split for non-outfitter/outfitter for non-residents. I looked at several popular tags/units/hunts and in most cases my odds improve using the outfitter pool - the non-outfitter pool gets worse in most cases (probably all). There are several hunts where the residents odds of drawing are made worse by this.

So it is probably a wash overall except for the BHS which I was never going to draw anyway. So again this was a divisive waste of all of our time.

 

[JRABQ]

>On the other
>hand I don't know many
>that think the 84% resident
>quota is too high because
>we are limited to 10%
>(max) across the board when
>we apply in other states
>in tag lotteries.

Just to be completely accurate, there are still several exceptions to the 10% NR quota. In WY NR get 25% of the sheep and moose tags, and 16% of the elk tags. WY deer and antelope are both above 10% but I don't recall exact # off the top of my head. All of these numbers may go down next year, in order to "reciprocate" [quote from post on WY page] based what is happening in other states.

In CO NR still get up to 20%, and in many cases up to 35%, of the available elk and deer tags. No quota on antelope.

 

[JRABQ]

>So again
>this was a divisive waste
>of all of our time.
>

Amen to that!

 

[nmhntr]

As a resident, I also strongly support eliminating the outfitter pool tag set aside rule. That thing is stupid!! Add my name to the list of supporters!

I am also very supportive of a reciprocal draw with other states that offer good hunting. Perhaps, CO, NM, MT, WY residents would allow their residents to apply in the resident pool in each state. The low populations of these states won't drastically impact resident draw odds. That would be sweet!! Would this be legal??

 

[Gator]

Surveyors counted 83 individual Mexican wolves in the wild in AZ and NM during 2013 (8) more then the year before.

The count has DOUBLED over the past (4) years.

Seven of the 14 known packs produced pups, and (17) Seventeen of those pups survived into the new year. All of the counted wolves are Wild-born descendants of a breeding Program that started with just (7) captive wolves.
While the wolves are now thriving in the wild, their subspecies remains on the federal endangered species list and more RELEASES of captive-bred wolves are planned to maintain genetic diversity within the wild population.

Looks like those tags will have some other type of competition other then Resident and Non-resident hunters. WOLVES
You all need to start thinking of sticking together, OR they will pick ya off one at a time.

Now if they get the number of wolves they are asking for, kiss your hunting of NM and AZ animals good-bye.





"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/]

 

[abqbw]

Arguing that NM doesn't have the lowest resident reserve in the west doesn't really add up very well. Sure there are always going to be exceptions. Quotas stink. They make us all fight. But they are in effect everywhere in the west where New Mexicans want to hunt and they are very restrictive. Unless the US Congress steps in and puts an end to the ridiculous arms race, we just want the same preference as residents of NM that our neighbors experience in their states.

Yes, there are a examples in other states of nonres draw quotas that are greater than 10%. Colorado Deer (all limited) and Limited Elk are 20% It was 40% not long ago. Sheep with 275 tags has had a quota of 10% for as long as I can remember. 1 out of 12 Desert Sheep tags goes to a nonresident. Nonresidents are allowed to apply in only 19 out of the 59 Rocky Mtn Sheep units and this year 9.1% of the Rocky Ram tags will go to nonresidents. CO reserves 100% of its Ranching for Wildlife tags for its residents. Ranching for Wildlife tags are some its most premier hunts. The point is that as the demand goes up and supply goes down CO becomes more restrictive.

What are we all going to do when some state decides the nonresident quota is Zero? In doubt any of us want a situation where the only nonresidents hunting are auction hunters that are paying $100k or $200k.

Perhaps Nonresidents, Outfitters, and Residents could get together and work things out in advance instead of all going to the Game Commission, Department, and Legislature as separate war parties and we could avoid some train wrecks. There should be a New Mexico Hunters Alliance or something where we all meet. This week has demonstrated that the current situation is not sustainable. A good starting point would be getting together to come up with a single unified proposal on the allocation of Sheep tags and maybe Ibex tags. (There should be plenty of Oryx tags for the current quota law to run smoothly for Oryx?).

 

[delmag1942]

There ARE states with zero NR quota. Off the top of my head. Kansas........Elk and Antelope
South Dakota..Elk, Sheep, Antelope, Mountain Lion
Nebraska......Elk and Antelope.

My biggest complaint is that it seems like every other year it is something in New Mexico! I am sure this is not the end by any means. That in addition to rules/laws that still need addressing. For example The Jennings Law, Outfitter 10%, and the landowner tag
deal.

It amazes me that every other state has it figured out somehow????

 

[NMdoghunter]

Not a resident (anymore unfortunately as of last year, born and raised in NM by the way) but congrats to the hunters of NM. Residents of NM deserve the best shot at hunting their animals.

>Yep, full refund, of all fees.
>
>
>I'll be asking for my pronghorn
>fees to be refunded as
>well...I'm in full boycott NM
>mode.
>
>Spineless residents stuck it to NR's
>with SB196 when the real
>problem is landowner tags and
>outfitter sponsored tags.
>
>Then this.
>
>I wont be applying in NM
>again unless the Residents grow
>a set of balls..

I hope a lot more people feel this way^^^. Better odds for me!

 

[NMdoghunter]

>Dnky anatomy:
>
>LO tags is another issue that
>is currently being pursued by
>various sportsmen's groups here in
>NM, as it is also
>a huge issue with regards
>to resident allocation.


Agreed, LO tags is the biggest issue with NMDGF's system.