Total #
- Thread starter JACOB2006
- Start date
WildernessHTR
Member
- Messages
- 9
I spoke to G&F on Friday. They said they didnt have the final numbers yet but they were up to about 152k. There were about 140k last year
passthrough
Active Member
- Messages
- 355
My guess is that a number of the extra applicants this year are youth.
delmag1942
Active Member
- Messages
- 806
With amongst the highest upfront fees/no points and very low draw %, I would guess it is an increase in residents whether it be youth/regular/mobility impaired. In addition I can only presume that R draw odds git at least slightly better last year.
J
jamaro
Guest
My gut feeling is that word finally got out on the sheep tags, last year it happened kind of late.
and the Gov also made it legal to give the refunds if you did draw.. They did it before but there was some concern if it was legal or not...
and the Gov also made it legal to give the refunds if you did draw.. They did it before but there was some concern if it was legal or not...
coryb
Active Member
- Messages
- 296
I would like to see the price of all licenses doubled, or at least raised substantially. They should also be reduced in quantity where ever necessary to maintain or increase herd size.
I just read an article in American Hunter Mag. about the declining mule deer herds in all of the western states. Their problem is bigger than just NM's management strategy, but reduced hunter kills would certainly help. Anybody who wants to put their money where their mouth is in reducing tag allocation can draw a tag in the unit they are concerned about and choose not to hunt. Definitely not something I currently plan to do, but could be necessary at some point.
Cory
I just read an article in American Hunter Mag. about the declining mule deer herds in all of the western states. Their problem is bigger than just NM's management strategy, but reduced hunter kills would certainly help. Anybody who wants to put their money where their mouth is in reducing tag allocation can draw a tag in the unit they are concerned about and choose not to hunt. Definitely not something I currently plan to do, but could be necessary at some point.
Cory
RioHuntNutt
Active Member
- Messages
- 831
+1 NMPaul. I really believe the that people will still apply for deer hunts even with a reduction of tags allocated through out all of NM and with a tag price increase.$34.00 IS NOTHING FOR A DEER TAG! $61.00 for antelope tags is easy to handle , if they increased deer tag prices and reduced tag numbers , they G&F would still make the revenue and the states deer herds could possibly grow stronger.
Before the draw I made some charts of rifle deer tags and harvest % for several units just to look at visual trends.
Pretty much mirrors what others have already said:
Interesting that tag numbers have been going down in many units already (along with hunter success...).
Pretty much mirrors what others have already said:
Interesting that tag numbers have been going down in many units already (along with hunter success...).
crazeymaez
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,513
If they increase the price,and drop tag #s.A few years will go by.Then Game&Fish will complaign they need more revenue and issue more deer tags.So we will be in the same boat paying more for a tag.
Look at our goat herds down south the drought has put a hurting on them.Do you see them issueing less tags.
Look at our goat herds down south the drought has put a hurting on them.Do you see them issueing less tags.
cosmic_cowboy
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,010
Everyone knows our deer herds are hurting I'm all for less tags and more $$ for the tags they have... but the NMDGF think deer tags are the same as a fishing licence. They will continue to over sell deer tags for the simple reason of they need the money. I have complained for years about this and they don't listen. Its as if they think the deer will last forever. Their wrong and I hope we can change this before its to late !
CC
CC
fishfurlife
Active Member
- Messages
- 253
Great. I am screwed.
I totally agree with NMPaul and the above posts. Up the cost of our deer and elk tags,cut the deer tags in half,or shut some units down for a couple years. We would still be paying way less for tags than many states charge. I also think the rest of the public should pay into G&F and state land funds. Time the bird watchers and hikers pay for the resources that hunters and anglers have funded for years.
NMPaul
Moderator
- Messages
- 8,102
The graphs for unit 30 and 34 show the disregard for the deer herd in these units.
How can you dump 2500 tags into a unit with less than 15% success?
1.5 in 10 hunters killed a deer, and in most cases they kill every little dink forkie.
On average you see 10+ does to every 1 fawn.
Where are the biologists??
How can you dump 2500 tags into a unit with less than 15% success?
1.5 in 10 hunters killed a deer, and in most cases they kill every little dink forkie.
On average you see 10+ does to every 1 fawn.
Where are the biologists??
Glad to see more people starting to say raise the price and cut tag numbers. Something has to be done if we ever hope to see the herds we had twenty years ago. Personal experience in 34 says there are two deer left in the whole unit. Jk but its bad. I grew up hunting 30 & 34 and the current herd shape is terrible from the glory days I remember. Youth do not enjoy walking all day for three days and never even seeing a deer. If something doesn't change we're not going to have a " next generation" .....
IChaseCoues
Member
- Messages
- 87
I have heard the G&F mention several times that some units are managed for "trophy quality" and some are managed for "hunter opportunity" when talking about deer.
Some believe that second management style came about because a lot of people in this state were complaining about not being able to hunt. If I remember correctly there were quite a few posts on this site a while back complaining that they did not have the opportunity to hunt. Then there were cheers as G&F allotted more tags to residents. More "hunter opportunity" in the way of higher resident draw percentages and many deer licenses available despite declining herds!
Be careful what you wish for!
I'm all for cutting tags. Heck I havent killed but one Muley in probably 15 years and its not because I didnt have the chance. We've hunted and found deer but for various reasons I haven't taken the shots.
The G&F has reasons for doing things the way they do. I'm not defending them just saying that they have reasons whether they are political, biological or economic. Not everything they do is a shot in the dark like many here make it out to be.
Just the way I see it.
Some believe that second management style came about because a lot of people in this state were complaining about not being able to hunt. If I remember correctly there were quite a few posts on this site a while back complaining that they did not have the opportunity to hunt. Then there were cheers as G&F allotted more tags to residents. More "hunter opportunity" in the way of higher resident draw percentages and many deer licenses available despite declining herds!
Be careful what you wish for!
I'm all for cutting tags. Heck I havent killed but one Muley in probably 15 years and its not because I didnt have the chance. We've hunted and found deer but for various reasons I haven't taken the shots.
The G&F has reasons for doing things the way they do. I'm not defending them just saying that they have reasons whether they are political, biological or economic. Not everything they do is a shot in the dark like many here make it out to be.
Just the way I see it.
1FastGambler
Active Member
- Messages
- 982
>I totally agree with NMPaul and
>the above posts. Up the
>cost of our deer and
>elk tags,cut the deer tags
>in half,or shut some units
>down for a couple years.
>We would still be paying
>way less for tags than
>many states charge. I also
>think the rest of the
>public should pay into G&F
>and state land funds. Time
>the bird watchers and hikers
>pay for the resources that
>hunters and anglers have funded
>for years.
______________________________________
Hank, I strongly disagree with this & here's why...
Because WE are the ones who pay for wildlive management, WE are the ones with the strongest voice in how our resources are managed.
Fees thru fishing & hunting lisences PLUS the funding from the Pittman Robertson act of 1937 is pretty much where all wildlife funding comes from.
These other groups don't currently have a dog in this fight. Once their funding begins to match ours we're in big trouble!
>the above posts. Up the
>cost of our deer and
>elk tags,cut the deer tags
>in half,or shut some units
>down for a couple years.
>We would still be paying
>way less for tags than
>many states charge. I also
>think the rest of the
>public should pay into G&F
>and state land funds. Time
>the bird watchers and hikers
>pay for the resources that
>hunters and anglers have funded
>for years.
______________________________________
Hank, I strongly disagree with this & here's why...
Because WE are the ones who pay for wildlive management, WE are the ones with the strongest voice in how our resources are managed.
Fees thru fishing & hunting lisences PLUS the funding from the Pittman Robertson act of 1937 is pretty much where all wildlife funding comes from.
These other groups don't currently have a dog in this fight. Once their funding begins to match ours we're in big trouble!
RioHuntNutt
Active Member
- Messages
- 831
LAST EDITED ON Mar-27-13 AT 01:25PM (MST)[p]The NM Game and Fish has become a department that is just too set on administrations,Dems/Rep
.Gov Richardson brings in his people, they in turn hire some of their people, then Gov Martinez comes in and repeat same steps. Mean while the agency has revolving doors as personnel come and go for numerous reasons.The Game and Fish doesn't get money from the states general fund, they have to make their own revenue thru all license sales etc.So not enough money comes in and the staff state wide is always changing, positions are filled for the sake of filling a position and seems like many times this is done with maybe not the right person for the job/position.Sportsmen argue against ranchers,ranchers against sportsmen and the elected people we put in office sit back and watch IT ALL as many and most do not have a passionate interest on our states outdoors.We are so limited on game wardens , under paid at that and many units do not even have even 1 stationed warden in it as I write this.(see under paid wardens)
Our deer herds are very much in danger, but there are so many more problems in our state than just our deer herds.We need a Game and Fish Department that is serious, passionate and committed to wildlife management and conservation.Now don't get me wrong, there are so many people who are, and have worked a lifetime and are working towards that now, but attitude reflects leadership , and frankly the departments leadership for what ever reason has not matched up with what this state needs and for resolving the problems we are faced with.
.Gov Richardson brings in his people, they in turn hire some of their people, then Gov Martinez comes in and repeat same steps. Mean while the agency has revolving doors as personnel come and go for numerous reasons.The Game and Fish doesn't get money from the states general fund, they have to make their own revenue thru all license sales etc.So not enough money comes in and the staff state wide is always changing, positions are filled for the sake of filling a position and seems like many times this is done with maybe not the right person for the job/position.Sportsmen argue against ranchers,ranchers against sportsmen and the elected people we put in office sit back and watch IT ALL as many and most do not have a passionate interest on our states outdoors.We are so limited on game wardens , under paid at that and many units do not even have even 1 stationed warden in it as I write this.(see under paid wardens)
Our deer herds are very much in danger, but there are so many more problems in our state than just our deer herds.We need a Game and Fish Department that is serious, passionate and committed to wildlife management and conservation.Now don't get me wrong, there are so many people who are, and have worked a lifetime and are working towards that now, but attitude reflects leadership , and frankly the departments leadership for what ever reason has not matched up with what this state needs and for resolving the problems we are faced with.
1FG ,my bad! I realized my mistake in including these anti-hunting,
anti-hunter groups in the mix.
All one has to do is look at the wolf fiasco that they have created and where that is going. ( So called Mexican Gray Wolves are not native to NM or AZ and are a hybred animal.)
anti-hunter groups in the mix.
All one has to do is look at the wolf fiasco that they have created and where that is going. ( So called Mexican Gray Wolves are not native to NM or AZ and are a hybred animal.)
Everybody has to understand NM does not have the deer Numbers to accommadate the hunting pressure thats put on them. The only way the deer are going to survive and grow is to close deer hunting in the state for at least four years and them make it a very limited draw like they do for the Rams. Deer hunting is a thing of the past in NM face it.
Totally agree about cutting the number of deer tags, or hunters need to take it on themselves to help kill coyotes and other predators. The state of NM has killed lots of predators where bighorns live.
Raising prices of tags is kind of a short term solution since they will always find a way to spend that money and still need more.
Raising prices of tags is kind of a short term solution since they will always find a way to spend that money and still need more.
Got an e-mail responce from new G&F deer biologist. We will be talking soon and I will relate some of it as I can.
They(DG&F) have to weigh social and biological impacts.
A 10 page list of factors is not unrealistic.
Antlers point restrictions have been proven not to work and not the best science.
Contrary to what we perceive, they say they still are seeing 20-30 buck to 100 doe ratios over all. But mule deer numbers continue to decline,overall population.
More predator reductions would be a big step. This is critical factor in fawn mortality rates statewide.
Habitat work is impeded by lack of funding. As is enforcement.
I know most of these G&F folks are good at what they do,but are overwelmed by the workload at times. I know that some will disagree,and that is their opinion/right to think as they wish. My local conservation officer(warden) has 3500 sq mile area assigned to him. That is tough to patrol period.
There are an estimated 60 unfilled positions statewide. And I think that even with much more funding it may not be enough to fill the voids. My take on this is the scofflaw attitude of many NM residents.
I personally think they do a thankless job for most part,and I think poaching is bigger problem than perceived.
I also think there are alot of great sportsmen in our state,same with landowners. If we can work together along side our G&F folks I think we can make a difference.
I see overpopulation of deer in the Silver City area and that means they are growing there even with the impacts that we have all mentioned.
I do not think mule deer hunting in NM is doomed but facing a critical break point. As mentioned I think over issue of tags in some units is throwing gas on the fire,but G&F gets slammed by the folks that want MORE when this is mentioned.
I am personally trying to make a small difference where I live as best I can with limited funds and that is my choice.
Keep the good ideas coming,maybe we can all make a difference, working together.
They(DG&F) have to weigh social and biological impacts.
A 10 page list of factors is not unrealistic.
Antlers point restrictions have been proven not to work and not the best science.
Contrary to what we perceive, they say they still are seeing 20-30 buck to 100 doe ratios over all. But mule deer numbers continue to decline,overall population.
More predator reductions would be a big step. This is critical factor in fawn mortality rates statewide.
Habitat work is impeded by lack of funding. As is enforcement.
I know most of these G&F folks are good at what they do,but are overwelmed by the workload at times. I know that some will disagree,and that is their opinion/right to think as they wish. My local conservation officer(warden) has 3500 sq mile area assigned to him. That is tough to patrol period.
There are an estimated 60 unfilled positions statewide. And I think that even with much more funding it may not be enough to fill the voids. My take on this is the scofflaw attitude of many NM residents.
I personally think they do a thankless job for most part,and I think poaching is bigger problem than perceived.
I also think there are alot of great sportsmen in our state,same with landowners. If we can work together along side our G&F folks I think we can make a difference.
I see overpopulation of deer in the Silver City area and that means they are growing there even with the impacts that we have all mentioned.
I do not think mule deer hunting in NM is doomed but facing a critical break point. As mentioned I think over issue of tags in some units is throwing gas on the fire,but G&F gets slammed by the folks that want MORE when this is mentioned.
I am personally trying to make a small difference where I live as best I can with limited funds and that is my choice.
Keep the good ideas coming,maybe we can all make a difference, working together.
Gator
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 18,135
Hell yes raise the price, everyone should be paying the same price, think how much more the F&G could spend, New trucks,New GW,New offices,NewGuns the list would go on. You have to CUT SPENDING at the same time to see the money build up.
Glad to see you all are now talking of cutting the resident tags and charging more now, or are you after the last 6% for the DIY NR hunter.
You all was happy to cut the NR tags and their money was the back bone of the F&G budget so Of course the Resident hunter will now have to step up and carry that weight or they will just sell more and more tags to make up that money better act fast before they slaughter the herds right out from under ya.
Now before they had a reason to keep the numbers up so they could sell those same $150 deer to NR for twice as much, and elk for 3 times as much.
They should just not sell any tags to the poor people just say the deer tag is a even $150 and the elk tag is a even $325.
That should help balance that old budget.
"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/]
Glad to see you all are now talking of cutting the resident tags and charging more now, or are you after the last 6% for the DIY NR hunter.
You all was happy to cut the NR tags and their money was the back bone of the F&G budget so Of course the Resident hunter will now have to step up and carry that weight or they will just sell more and more tags to make up that money better act fast before they slaughter the herds right out from under ya.
Now before they had a reason to keep the numbers up so they could sell those same $150 deer to NR for twice as much, and elk for 3 times as much.
They should just not sell any tags to the poor people just say the deer tag is a even $150 and the elk tag is a even $325.
That should help balance that old budget.
"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/]
N
nm_alazan
Guest
I don't believe that cutting tags will solve the mule deer decline. If it were that simple, the problem wouldn't span the entire western US like it currently does.
Just look at 5B. They shut the unit down for several years, and the tag numbers now are very low. While the deer herd recovered enough to allow hunting again, the numbers have not rebounded to anywhere near the point they were 20-30 years ago, and there has been minimal harvest in that unit going on 15 years now.
The Sandias are another good example. Just 15 years ago you couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting a deer up there. Now, even with very limited archery tags, deer are few and far between.
The mule deer problem is big one and is multi-faceted in my opinion and tag numbers are only a very small part of the equation.
Just look at 5B. They shut the unit down for several years, and the tag numbers now are very low. While the deer herd recovered enough to allow hunting again, the numbers have not rebounded to anywhere near the point they were 20-30 years ago, and there has been minimal harvest in that unit going on 15 years now.
The Sandias are another good example. Just 15 years ago you couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting a deer up there. Now, even with very limited archery tags, deer are few and far between.
The mule deer problem is big one and is multi-faceted in my opinion and tag numbers are only a very small part of the equation.
NMPaul
Moderator
- Messages
- 8,102
>I don't believe that cutting tags
>will solve the mule deer
>decline. If it were
>that simple, the problem wouldn't
>span the entire western US
>like it currently does.
>
>Just look at 5B. They
>shut the unit down for
>several years, and the tag
>numbers now are very low.
> While the deer herd
>recovered enough to allow hunting
>again, the numbers have not
>rebounded to anywhere near the
>point they were 20-30 years
>ago, and there has been
>minimal harvest in that unit
>going on 15 years now.
>
>
>The Sandias are another good example.
> Just 15 years ago
>you couldn't swing a dead
>cat without hitting a deer
>up there. Now, even
>with very limited archery tags,
>deer are few and far
>between.
>
>The mule deer problem is big
>one and is multi-faceted in
>my opinion and tag numbers
>are only a very small
>part of the equation.
I dont think anyone believes reducing tags will eliminate the problem. Each unit has different circumstances.
However, dropping 2500 tags on public land in 1 unit is beyond excessive.
It is something that can be done now. Predator control is more difficult and expensive to make happen consistently.
>will solve the mule deer
>decline. If it were
>that simple, the problem wouldn't
>span the entire western US
>like it currently does.
>
>Just look at 5B. They
>shut the unit down for
>several years, and the tag
>numbers now are very low.
> While the deer herd
>recovered enough to allow hunting
>again, the numbers have not
>rebounded to anywhere near the
>point they were 20-30 years
>ago, and there has been
>minimal harvest in that unit
>going on 15 years now.
>
>
>The Sandias are another good example.
> Just 15 years ago
>you couldn't swing a dead
>cat without hitting a deer
>up there. Now, even
>with very limited archery tags,
>deer are few and far
>between.
>
>The mule deer problem is big
>one and is multi-faceted in
>my opinion and tag numbers
>are only a very small
>part of the equation.
I dont think anyone believes reducing tags will eliminate the problem. Each unit has different circumstances.
However, dropping 2500 tags on public land in 1 unit is beyond excessive.
It is something that can be done now. Predator control is more difficult and expensive to make happen consistently.
Wailing4Wapiti
Active Member
- Messages
- 148
LAST EDITED ON Apr-02-13 AT 08:33AM (MST)[p]RopinFool,
"how bout we triple the price of the non-resident tags and leave the resident tags alone."
That is the next logical step in the Tag Grab of SB196 and shows the selfishness for what it really is. Make everyone else pay three times more when they are already paying many times more. Thanks for articulating what most supporters of the tag grabs have enough sense not say on a public forum.
FYI, my time and money is going to Wyoming this year. I will miss my home state, but I doubt it is the last time and am becoming more and more skeptical about hunting NM in the future. I will definitely miss my old honey holes and one of these days may sell the waypoints to the highest bidder to make a small dent in the way I have been gouged and then shut out since I moved away in 99.
"how bout we triple the price of the non-resident tags and leave the resident tags alone."
That is the next logical step in the Tag Grab of SB196 and shows the selfishness for what it really is. Make everyone else pay three times more when they are already paying many times more. Thanks for articulating what most supporters of the tag grabs have enough sense not say on a public forum.
FYI, my time and money is going to Wyoming this year. I will miss my home state, but I doubt it is the last time and am becoming more and more skeptical about hunting NM in the future. I will definitely miss my old honey holes and one of these days may sell the waypoints to the highest bidder to make a small dent in the way I have been gouged and then shut out since I moved away in 99.
same mentality as NR's crying for equal tag prices.
the decline of the deer population isn't going to be fixed by making hunters pay more. less tags issued makes sense. HOWEVER not less public tags and more landowner tags. that's been our states mentality so far.
the decline of the deer population isn't going to be fixed by making hunters pay more. less tags issued makes sense. HOWEVER not less public tags and more landowner tags. that's been our states mentality so far.
J
jamaro
Guest
NR are making it sound like it is the end of the world.. NM still have more NR opportunities than any state out there...
Wailing4Wapiti
Active Member
- Messages
- 148
How do you figure that? Wyoming and Colorado both give NR's much better treatment. Granted WY has the ridiculous guide rule for wilderness but they give plenty of NR tags. Not only that, they do the NR draw in February so you actually have time to plan your hunt. The only reason I will still consider hunting NM is because I grew up there and know my spots. If I were just starting or didn't have the foot knowledge I do, I wouldn't waste my time applying in NM.
J
jamaro
Guest
16% of our tags go to NR.. that doesn't include LO tags so for things like antelope over 70% of all tags go to NR. We don't have a point system... You could draw awesome units every year.. You cant' do that in WY,CO,NV,AZ or UT.... Look at states like AZ, NV, and UT.. we are much more NR friendly.
Wailing4Wapiti
Active Member
- Messages
- 148
Only 6% are available for the average NR DIY hunter. Landowner tags are just as available for NM hunters as they are NR hunters. In fact, they are more available as NR have to pay 5X as much for the tag on top of the authorization.
WY & CO still provide much more quality opportunity for NR's than NM. AZ has a much larger resident population with fewer total tags available and is a poor comparison, IMHO. I know little to nothing about UT & NV so I won't expose my ignorance any more than I may have already. I'll also admit I'm only concerned and/or talking about elk as I couldn't imagine spending the time and money needed to hunt deer or antelope.
As for "you could draw awesome units every year," Yeah and you could also win power-ball and buy a hunt. Odds wouldn't be much different.
WY & CO still provide much more quality opportunity for NR's than NM. AZ has a much larger resident population with fewer total tags available and is a poor comparison, IMHO. I know little to nothing about UT & NV so I won't expose my ignorance any more than I may have already. I'll also admit I'm only concerned and/or talking about elk as I couldn't imagine spending the time and money needed to hunt deer or antelope.
As for "you could draw awesome units every year," Yeah and you could also win power-ball and buy a hunt. Odds wouldn't be much different.
J
jamaro
Guest
As a resident it does matter if they are DIY or not, bottom line 14% go to NR... Bottom line.
You are right LO tags are available to everyone but the stats don't lie.
AZ is a solid comparison.. Both states sell out on all most tags.. Think about it, before I even get in the game for goats I am over $3,000 in the hole... and that is even before I have an chance at getting a tag. For Elk I am at least $2,000 in the hole. How many points does it take to draw a premiere unit is CO? 12+?
WY and CO are you're examples and those are marginal at best because of point systems. What about the rest of the west??
You are right LO tags are available to everyone but the stats don't lie.
AZ is a solid comparison.. Both states sell out on all most tags.. Think about it, before I even get in the game for goats I am over $3,000 in the hole... and that is even before I have an chance at getting a tag. For Elk I am at least $2,000 in the hole. How many points does it take to draw a premiere unit is CO? 12+?
WY and CO are you're examples and those are marginal at best because of point systems. What about the rest of the west??
J
jamaro
Guest
Sorry I had too...
I KNOW LAYUP
I KNOW LAYUP
Wailing4Wapiti
Active Member
- Messages
- 148
LAST EDITED ON Apr-02-13 AT 02:54PM (MST)[p]Just because more NR buy the LO vouchers does not mean they are not available to residents. The main reason residents don't buy them is because they don't value them the way NR's do. The reverse is not true. (Many will claim its because NM doesn't have the wealth of other states and that is true. However, that isn't because NM doesn't have resources and the ability to create higher paying jobs but because of a mindset and lack of ambition. I know I will catch flack for that, but as someone who grew up in Albuquerque, then lived in Roswell for 8 years as an adult and now lives in the Midwest, I can tell you firsthand there is a huge difference in the cultural mindset towards work, getting ahead and creating something better for yourself and your children.)
As for WY & CO being marginal because of their point system, that is crazy except for a few trophy hunts. The difference with WY and CO is that there are still a very large number of quality hunts available without a large number of points. For example most people draw a WY general tag with only one preference point. You can all but guarantee yourself a WY general elk tag every other year. Lots of outstanding hunting opportunities with general tags. In CO, yes there are a few units that unless you were on the ground floor buying points, you will never have enough, but there are many, many others that only take one or two points to draw and there are countless tags available OTC to anyone, resident or non resident.
Just because AZ rapes NR's doesn't make it "right" for everyone else to do the same. That logic is crazy. Every state has its share of stupid laws, do we really want other states to stoop to every other state's level of stupidity or protectionism?
Too many New Mexicans want to argue "Supply and Demand" for NR but protect quotas and prices for Residents at all costs. It can't go both ways. If someone wants to go the "Supply and Demand" route, then get ready to sacrifice percentages of tags that sell to locals.
If you want a "fair" system that allows and encourages a hunting heritage without it becoming a European Rich Man's Sport, then go to a wide open draw with reasonable tag fees (i.e. about double what the resident currently pays) that help support the department of game and fish and get rid of the landowner tag system. Otherwise, just be honest and admit the "tag grab." Those with the power (i.e. residents who convinced the NM legislature) have limited the number of tags that go to NR's and in doing so created both a resident and an outfitter preferential system. When that system wasn't good enough for the average resident, they increased their percentage of tags in a minute way at the expense of 40% of the available tags for DIY NR and 18% of those available to those in the outfitter pool.
My biggest problem with the changes in NM (outside the obvious fact that I will likely never draw tags for units I know well and put a lot of work into in the past) is that those pushing for those changes refuse to acknowledge that their selfishness (hence Ropinfool's post) over wanting those tags is no different than my selfishness of wanting the tags for me, nor is it really much different than the selfishness of the landowners wanting tags for themselves that they can then sale. Bottom line is that tags are a limited resource and everyone can't have one every year. How those tags are distributed then becomes a question of who has the power to protect, or grab, them for themselves. Right now, the residents have that power and they have exercised it at the expense of the DIY NR. (I know you will say that was not the intent, but you cannot deny it was and is the result)
However, there may come a day when there is a power shift. Yes, residents may have the power to determine who gets the tags. However, the feds also have the power to determine who can use the land and they could even start charging states for grazing for the wildlife if the states want to claim total ownership of the animals.
No, I don't advocate the above and the last thing I would want is the feds in control of hunting opportunities. However, it is becoming more of a possibility with the expanding of the federal government and the frustration level of those who see our vast resource (Nationally owned lands) being used in ways they are currently used.
Good luck to everyone in the draw and on your hunts. Maybe I will hit the tag lottery in future years. Maybe I will have such a good time in Wyoming this year that I quit fighting the NM nonsense.
As for WY & CO being marginal because of their point system, that is crazy except for a few trophy hunts. The difference with WY and CO is that there are still a very large number of quality hunts available without a large number of points. For example most people draw a WY general tag with only one preference point. You can all but guarantee yourself a WY general elk tag every other year. Lots of outstanding hunting opportunities with general tags. In CO, yes there are a few units that unless you were on the ground floor buying points, you will never have enough, but there are many, many others that only take one or two points to draw and there are countless tags available OTC to anyone, resident or non resident.
Just because AZ rapes NR's doesn't make it "right" for everyone else to do the same. That logic is crazy. Every state has its share of stupid laws, do we really want other states to stoop to every other state's level of stupidity or protectionism?
Too many New Mexicans want to argue "Supply and Demand" for NR but protect quotas and prices for Residents at all costs. It can't go both ways. If someone wants to go the "Supply and Demand" route, then get ready to sacrifice percentages of tags that sell to locals.
If you want a "fair" system that allows and encourages a hunting heritage without it becoming a European Rich Man's Sport, then go to a wide open draw with reasonable tag fees (i.e. about double what the resident currently pays) that help support the department of game and fish and get rid of the landowner tag system. Otherwise, just be honest and admit the "tag grab." Those with the power (i.e. residents who convinced the NM legislature) have limited the number of tags that go to NR's and in doing so created both a resident and an outfitter preferential system. When that system wasn't good enough for the average resident, they increased their percentage of tags in a minute way at the expense of 40% of the available tags for DIY NR and 18% of those available to those in the outfitter pool.
My biggest problem with the changes in NM (outside the obvious fact that I will likely never draw tags for units I know well and put a lot of work into in the past) is that those pushing for those changes refuse to acknowledge that their selfishness (hence Ropinfool's post) over wanting those tags is no different than my selfishness of wanting the tags for me, nor is it really much different than the selfishness of the landowners wanting tags for themselves that they can then sale. Bottom line is that tags are a limited resource and everyone can't have one every year. How those tags are distributed then becomes a question of who has the power to protect, or grab, them for themselves. Right now, the residents have that power and they have exercised it at the expense of the DIY NR. (I know you will say that was not the intent, but you cannot deny it was and is the result)
However, there may come a day when there is a power shift. Yes, residents may have the power to determine who gets the tags. However, the feds also have the power to determine who can use the land and they could even start charging states for grazing for the wildlife if the states want to claim total ownership of the animals.
No, I don't advocate the above and the last thing I would want is the feds in control of hunting opportunities. However, it is becoming more of a possibility with the expanding of the federal government and the frustration level of those who see our vast resource (Nationally owned lands) being used in ways they are currently used.
Good luck to everyone in the draw and on your hunts. Maybe I will hit the tag lottery in future years. Maybe I will have such a good time in Wyoming this year that I quit fighting the NM nonsense.
J
jamaro
Guest
First...
Regarding your first statement.. I wouldn't agree but I would say that the mindset is different in the mid-west where there is very little public land and people are used to paying for access. For NM residents that is a foreign idea. Also, in the Mid-west I don't think LO tags are an issue.. In CO, 15% of ALL elk tags go to LO, in NM it is closer to 50%. A big difference. NM is one of the few states where LO are truly given control over a state resource. This may be illegal..
As far as a fair system, A LOT of people have wanted a straight draw with NO OF subsides.. THE OF fought hard for the subsides on the backs of DIY NR and won.
What you consider as AZ raping NR, is becoming the norm... NV and UT are just as bad. Those states have listened to the Resident hunters...
The concepts of Resident vs. Non-R quotas has been fought in the court system and it deemed that the quotas are legal... They happen in just about every state. Residents should have preference.
Yes we are all fighting for a limited resource, just like many states. This is nothing new.
Regarding your first statement.. I wouldn't agree but I would say that the mindset is different in the mid-west where there is very little public land and people are used to paying for access. For NM residents that is a foreign idea. Also, in the Mid-west I don't think LO tags are an issue.. In CO, 15% of ALL elk tags go to LO, in NM it is closer to 50%. A big difference. NM is one of the few states where LO are truly given control over a state resource. This may be illegal..
As far as a fair system, A LOT of people have wanted a straight draw with NO OF subsides.. THE OF fought hard for the subsides on the backs of DIY NR and won.
What you consider as AZ raping NR, is becoming the norm... NV and UT are just as bad. Those states have listened to the Resident hunters...
The concepts of Resident vs. Non-R quotas has been fought in the court system and it deemed that the quotas are legal... They happen in just about every state. Residents should have preference.
Yes we are all fighting for a limited resource, just like many states. This is nothing new.
Nice post Wailing4Wapiti!
I don't know why people say things like," triple the NR Fee".
Its like the NR is the enemy? That's how I take it anyway. Its not our fault NMG&F doesn't know how to manage.
Also 6% of the tags for the DIY pool is the only guarantee the NR have! That's all the NR get if residents get drawn in the outfitter side. So its less opportunity than other states.
I don't know why people say things like," triple the NR Fee".
Its like the NR is the enemy? That's how I take it anyway. Its not our fault NMG&F doesn't know how to manage.
Also 6% of the tags for the DIY pool is the only guarantee the NR have! That's all the NR get if residents get drawn in the outfitter side. So its less opportunity than other states.
Whew...I thought we were talking about deer #'s
Yeah the outfitter pool is a bit messed up and DIY guys kind of got short end of stick,but you can possibly draw here and if not pick up a LO tag.
As I stated before we (RES) can afford to pay a little more for our tags to make up revenue. The cut out NR stuff is BS.
Residents whined and got more and all the cow tags,and some folks still whining. Thats the Entitlement Factor in NM IMHO.
Non- residents can get cow LO tags and hunt them too still.
LO's do own half the land here so thats a nobrainer....
Buy some land like I did and stop whining as you drive around in your 50K pickup and think about maybe working today...or go watch tv, whatever.
NM still is one of the best deals around,res. or NR IMHO.
I quit playing the points for a meager chance at marginal elk in other states. And the deer is getting the same way,even CO.
Yeah the outfitter pool is a bit messed up and DIY guys kind of got short end of stick,but you can possibly draw here and if not pick up a LO tag.
As I stated before we (RES) can afford to pay a little more for our tags to make up revenue. The cut out NR stuff is BS.
Residents whined and got more and all the cow tags,and some folks still whining. Thats the Entitlement Factor in NM IMHO.
Non- residents can get cow LO tags and hunt them too still.
LO's do own half the land here so thats a nobrainer....
Buy some land like I did and stop whining as you drive around in your 50K pickup and think about maybe working today...or go watch tv, whatever.
NM still is one of the best deals around,res. or NR IMHO.
I quit playing the points for a meager chance at marginal elk in other states. And the deer is getting the same way,even CO.
LAST EDITED ON Apr-03-13 AT 08:50AM (MST)[p]I can agree to a point. This is a tough subject for me because I have friends and family that receive authorizations. If you we're to look at E-plus and list all the ranches that are RO you would would pretty much see the ranches that make business/range decisions that take wildlife into account. I would guess from personal experience that ranches that have deer and or antelope maybe 60%?
A person receiving UW tags has no incentive to make decisions based on wildlife. How many LO's do you believe keep windmills,solar wells etc running in a pasture when cattle are not present? I can tell you from people I know it is very limited. Again the ones that do have some sort of hunting operation on the deeded land and see wildlife as a commodity. ( not saying that is a bad thing)
How much good can a LO enrolled in SCR with 1 acre really do?
I am very pro LO rights but lets keep it real.
A person receiving UW tags has no incentive to make decisions based on wildlife. How many LO's do you believe keep windmills,solar wells etc running in a pasture when cattle are not present? I can tell you from people I know it is very limited. Again the ones that do have some sort of hunting operation on the deeded land and see wildlife as a commodity. ( not saying that is a bad thing)
How much good can a LO enrolled in SCR with 1 acre really do?
I am very pro LO rights but lets keep it real.
DoeNob
Active Member
- Messages
- 930
Truf, get rid of unit wide tags, that's a start in the right direction.
As a NR I'm resigned to getting screwed to one degree or another everywhere, not going to stop me from playing the game. But when the same people who want to gouge NR then come argue about equality and it turning into a rich man's sport all I can do is laugh. When tags are $1000 the average hunter can't afford that, now you have essentially limited yourself to only allowing elitest Non-Resident hunters in your state. And guess what, the most elite of the elite know how to lobby and get laws changed, next up? Tag grab ala Utah. Just wait, it'll come. And what started it all is gouging non-residents on tag prices. Be careful what you ask for.
As a NR I'm resigned to getting screwed to one degree or another everywhere, not going to stop me from playing the game. But when the same people who want to gouge NR then come argue about equality and it turning into a rich man's sport all I can do is laugh. When tags are $1000 the average hunter can't afford that, now you have essentially limited yourself to only allowing elitest Non-Resident hunters in your state. And guess what, the most elite of the elite know how to lobby and get laws changed, next up? Tag grab ala Utah. Just wait, it'll come. And what started it all is gouging non-residents on tag prices. Be careful what you ask for.
Reuben_Soady
Active Member
- Messages
- 332
Here is another reason why unit-wide tags are a reasonable option for a small contributing ranch (SCR).
I've been looking at a chunk of land in the 50's which probably would receive one SCR elk tag a year (enough for me, eh?). Even before making the buy/no-buy decision, I have already decided that the elk tag will be unit wide, not because the tag would command a higher price or allow more hunting options for me, but because it was clear that NM hunters will be trespassing (i.e. without permission) on my property even if the tag is ranch only. So, if the NM hunters are going to treat my property as if it is on the unit wide list, I figured it was reasonable for me to treat it the same way.
There are lots of ways to manage wildlife, and lots of work-arounds to address the inequities of those management policies. It wasn't long ago that the purchase of real estate conveyed everything on the property, including wild game. Lots of European countries still leave regional management of game to hunter associations (clubs). In the USA, where wild game is managed as a public resource, land owner authorizations are a pretty good way to ameliorate limitations on private property rights. If there are cases of poor application of the process (and exceptions prove the rule) then those individual cases should be addressed, instead of "tossing out the baby with the bathwater."
I've been looking at a chunk of land in the 50's which probably would receive one SCR elk tag a year (enough for me, eh?). Even before making the buy/no-buy decision, I have already decided that the elk tag will be unit wide, not because the tag would command a higher price or allow more hunting options for me, but because it was clear that NM hunters will be trespassing (i.e. without permission) on my property even if the tag is ranch only. So, if the NM hunters are going to treat my property as if it is on the unit wide list, I figured it was reasonable for me to treat it the same way.
There are lots of ways to manage wildlife, and lots of work-arounds to address the inequities of those management policies. It wasn't long ago that the purchase of real estate conveyed everything on the property, including wild game. Lots of European countries still leave regional management of game to hunter associations (clubs). In the USA, where wild game is managed as a public resource, land owner authorizations are a pretty good way to ameliorate limitations on private property rights. If there are cases of poor application of the process (and exceptions prove the rule) then those individual cases should be addressed, instead of "tossing out the baby with the bathwater."
IChaseCoues
Member
- Messages
- 87
Oh, here it goes again. The OP asked if there had been an increase in applications and as usual it has turned into a bash the land owner, bash the non resident, and bash the game and fish session.
Hey guys, THIS REALLY GETS OLD!
Hey guys, THIS REALLY GETS OLD!
i was being sarcastic but residents do get and deserve preferential treatment to the hunting tags in our state as in all others. so to say res and non-res should pay the same and same odds is dumb. if you don't like it then move to NM or buy a LO tag. you can hunt here every year if you like.....buy a LO tag!
as far as the declining deer population, the g&f probably does need to decrease the number of tags in some areas......STARTING WITH THE LO TAGS.
as far as the declining deer population, the g&f probably does need to decrease the number of tags in some areas......STARTING WITH THE LO TAGS.
DoeNob
Active Member
- Messages
- 930
>Here is another reason why unit-wide
>tags are a reasonable option
>for a small contributing ranch
>(SCR).
>
>I've been looking at a chunk
>of land in the 50's
>which probably would receive one
>SCR elk tag a year
>(enough for me, eh?). Even
>before making the buy/no-buy decision,
>I have already decided that
>the elk tag will be
>unit wide, not because the
>tag would command a higher
>price or allow more hunting
>options for me, but because
>it was clear that NM
>hunters will be trespassing (i.e.
>without permission) on my property
>even if the tag is
>ranch only. So, if the
>NM hunters are going to
>treat my property as if
>it is on the unit
>wide list, I figured it
>was reasonable for me to
>treat it the same way.
>
>
>There are lots of ways to
>manage wildlife, and lots of
>work-arounds to address the inequities
>of those management policies.
>It wasn't long ago that
>the purchase of real estate
>conveyed everything on the property,
>including wild game. Lots of
>European countries still leave regional
>management of game to hunter
>associations (clubs). In the USA,
>where wild game is managed
>as a public resource, land
>owner authorizations are a pretty
>good way to ameliorate limitations
>on private property rights. If
>there are cases of poor
>application of the process (and
>exceptions prove the rule) then
>those individual cases should be
>addressed, instead of "tossing out
>the baby with the bathwater."
>
I dont' think that's a good rationale at all. If the property you want to buy is not properly secured and you want it secure, you need to do that, that's an additional expense and probably a reason you are getting a good deal on it in the first place.
I have an associate that has a large ranch near Las Vegas, and hiring full time ex-navy seal security to patrol it every couple years is just something they have to do. Get the word out that they have some hardass out there and don't F around, and the poaching and trespassing vanishes, but you have to make a few examples so the word gets out.
>tags are a reasonable option
>for a small contributing ranch
>(SCR).
>
>I've been looking at a chunk
>of land in the 50's
>which probably would receive one
>SCR elk tag a year
>(enough for me, eh?). Even
>before making the buy/no-buy decision,
>I have already decided that
>the elk tag will be
>unit wide, not because the
>tag would command a higher
>price or allow more hunting
>options for me, but because
>it was clear that NM
>hunters will be trespassing (i.e.
>without permission) on my property
>even if the tag is
>ranch only. So, if the
>NM hunters are going to
>treat my property as if
>it is on the unit
>wide list, I figured it
>was reasonable for me to
>treat it the same way.
>
>
>There are lots of ways to
>manage wildlife, and lots of
>work-arounds to address the inequities
>of those management policies.
>It wasn't long ago that
>the purchase of real estate
>conveyed everything on the property,
>including wild game. Lots of
>European countries still leave regional
>management of game to hunter
>associations (clubs). In the USA,
>where wild game is managed
>as a public resource, land
>owner authorizations are a pretty
>good way to ameliorate limitations
>on private property rights. If
>there are cases of poor
>application of the process (and
>exceptions prove the rule) then
>those individual cases should be
>addressed, instead of "tossing out
>the baby with the bathwater."
>
I dont' think that's a good rationale at all. If the property you want to buy is not properly secured and you want it secure, you need to do that, that's an additional expense and probably a reason you are getting a good deal on it in the first place.
I have an associate that has a large ranch near Las Vegas, and hiring full time ex-navy seal security to patrol it every couple years is just something they have to do. Get the word out that they have some hardass out there and don't F around, and the poaching and trespassing vanishes, but you have to make a few examples so the word gets out.
coryb
Active Member
- Messages
- 296
Jamaro,
Please learn to give true answers and not political bs.
The "bottom line," as you stated above, is incorrect. NR are guaranteed 6%, not 14%. The outfitter pool is open to both res and non res hunters. More res hunters can have these tags if they simple apply with an outfitter.
Also, your claim that 70% of antelope tags go to NR hunters is very misleading. It implies that resident hunters do not have a chance at those tags. The fact of the matter is that EVERY landowner tag is first given to someone who owns property in NM. All of these people pay nm taxes and many of them employ the res. you so often refer to. In many cases they are much more financially beneficial to the state then many deadbeat residents who are a drain on our states resources. I truly believe that almost all NM residents could afford a $2,000 antelope authorization every year if they simply stopped spending their money on Bud Light, cigarettes and new trucks. They choose these things instead and that is their choice.
Cory
Please learn to give true answers and not political bs.
The "bottom line," as you stated above, is incorrect. NR are guaranteed 6%, not 14%. The outfitter pool is open to both res and non res hunters. More res hunters can have these tags if they simple apply with an outfitter.
Also, your claim that 70% of antelope tags go to NR hunters is very misleading. It implies that resident hunters do not have a chance at those tags. The fact of the matter is that EVERY landowner tag is first given to someone who owns property in NM. All of these people pay nm taxes and many of them employ the res. you so often refer to. In many cases they are much more financially beneficial to the state then many deadbeat residents who are a drain on our states resources. I truly believe that almost all NM residents could afford a $2,000 antelope authorization every year if they simply stopped spending their money on Bud Light, cigarettes and new trucks. They choose these things instead and that is their choice.
Cory
Wailing4Wapiti
Active Member
- Messages
- 148
Cory,
Exactly! That was my point earlier. NM residents don't value the tags enough to buy them but they have just as much access to them as non residents. One of the reasons they don't value them enough to buy the authorizations is the culture of entitlement.
You are also right about 6% being the actual number of tags saved for non residents as the outfitter pool has no resident/non resident restrictions. Again, a resident can pay for a "Limited Guided Hunt" and his NM resident tag and be out less than a 6% non-resident pays for a HD or Q elk tag and only a few $ more than going to Colorado.
Exactly! That was my point earlier. NM residents don't value the tags enough to buy them but they have just as much access to them as non residents. One of the reasons they don't value them enough to buy the authorizations is the culture of entitlement.
You are also right about 6% being the actual number of tags saved for non residents as the outfitter pool has no resident/non resident restrictions. Again, a resident can pay for a "Limited Guided Hunt" and his NM resident tag and be out less than a 6% non-resident pays for a HD or Q elk tag and only a few $ more than going to Colorado.
Exactly! Entitlements have ruined the country. Guys give it up. Jason wont be happy until nr are banned from nm. But idk who he will blame for the poor draw odds then. I guess the next entitlement program will be free tags and licenses for the underachievers. After all, they deserve it!
J
jamaro
Guest
WRONG... I agree let's get rid of the LO entitlements, and the OF entitlements...
I'm done on this... We all know where everybody stands.
J-
I'm done on this... We all know where everybody stands.
J-
the only reason you would want to get rid of LO tags is because you are too broke to afford land that is entitled to LO tags. why get rid of the LO tags where numbers need to be controlled? if you have never been out fixing fences all day cuz a herd of elk destroyed it then you shouldn't have a say so in whether nm has land owner tags or not. jamaro just cuz your little videos of you and your little coues deer don't destroy fences.
>the only reason you would want
>to get rid of LO
>tags is because you are
>too broke to afford land
>that is entitled to LO
>tags. why get rid of
>the LO tags where numbers
>need to be controlled? if
>you have never been out
>fixing fences all day cuz
>a herd of elk destroyed
>it then you shouldn't have
>a say so in whether
>nm has land owner tags
>or not. jamaro just cuz
>your little videos of you
>and your little coues deer
>don't destroy fences.
Wow.....
am I too broke as well???
Lmao. Good luck to all this year.
>to get rid of LO
>tags is because you are
>too broke to afford land
>that is entitled to LO
>tags. why get rid of
>the LO tags where numbers
>need to be controlled? if
>you have never been out
>fixing fences all day cuz
>a herd of elk destroyed
>it then you shouldn't have
>a say so in whether
>nm has land owner tags
>or not. jamaro just cuz
>your little videos of you
>and your little coues deer
>don't destroy fences.
Wow.....
am I too broke as well???
Lmao. Good luck to all this year.
your right, nm is the land of entitlements! LO tags are a huge form of those entitlements or welfair or subsity or whatever you want to call them. 30 years ago no ranchers were crying because they had to fix fence for whatever reason. now all they see is dollar signs. i grew up in a ranching family so i can say this. i don't want to kick out the nr's or eliminate LO tags. but the g&f is sitting on a lot of money because they are giving away LO tags for cheap when they can be generating more money.
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.