Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game New Mexico rules changes

Received this in an email.

Senate Bill 196

In case you don't know yet, the UBNM has backed this bill. Details about what we have done and continue to do to "back" the bill will follow at a later time. Here's our official position.
The bill accomplished three things for the NM resident hunter:

1) Increases resident allocation of tags from 78% of total tags to
90% of total tags for all species except Bighorns, Ibex and Oryx.

2) Addresses the revenue issue by mandating that all applicants buy a general hunting license. Most residents do this already. Most residents and non-residents do this in other western states for which they apply as a NR. Our $90 NR general hunting license is more than competitively priced when compared to Arizona's $151.25 NR general hunting license.

3) It lowers resident tag costs by a few dollars.

The UBNM was willing and eager to discuss possible compromises with members of "The Coalition", namely the NM Cattlegrowers and the NM Council for Guides and Outfitters. Apparently, some discussions regarding compromise occured, but the UBNM was not invited. Perhaps these groups didn't feel the UBNM was significant enough to pose a threat???

In any case, the bill was written without the UBNM having the ability to help design it. We're fine with that. In it's current form the bill will improve the system when compared to how the system is designed today. The UBNM was founded on the idea of continual improvement.

As expected, this bill will be met with major opposition from "Coalition" forces including the NM Council for Guides and Outfitters, the NM Cattlegrower's Association, the NM Houndsmen, The NM Woolgrowers and others. I want to make it clear that the UBNM has nothing against any of these groups. They are fighting to protect their position as we will fight to advance ours. In the future I hope to work with these groups to accomplish other changes and bring forth further improvements.

The fundamental difference between the UBNM and the other groups mentioned here is this:

Their organization is tied directly to their livlihood. To most of us, bowhunting is a passion, but one that costs us money (a lot usually) instead of making us money.

For that simple reason these groups fight long and hard. It is because of their relentless efforts that the great State of NM employs game laws that are not only biased, but sometimes reckless. You won't find a "Jenning's Law" in Colorado or Wyoming. For way too long game laws in this state have been influenced, written and enforced in the interest of politically active groups that did not include BOWHUNTERS. Things have now changed and your support is more appreciated than I could ever express in words. The UBNM will do our best to show our appreciation of your support through results!

www.unitedbowhuntersofnewmexico.com

Repealling Jennings law would be a big step forward.

So are you saying that when I buy a NR cow elk "ranch tag"($327), I am not buying a NR hunting license?

If we could ever get that done, we might have the muscle to actually get some of this other legislation passed.

Exactly, without it there leverage is pretty much gone correct?

Until I got to the end of the post, couldn't for the life of me figure out what "UBNM" was.........

As a guy who guides in NM most years, I kind've marveled at the power the ranching industry yeilds in NM wildlife "management"--the only state that comes close is Wyoming.

The problem is, so much good and deer habitat is private land in NM, long ago NM wildlife managers had to create hunting programs directed at sport hunting on private ground. Then it got out of hand when ranching interests essentially came to own the NM wildlife commission.

The problem is when the state legislature steps in and micro-manages wildlife regulation with statute--such as the notorius Jennings Law.

In Colorado, the state Republican led legislature started down the same kind of path, but recieved a wakeup call from state sport hunters in the late 90's.

Have you thought about a state ballot initiative making the wildlife commission an elected body? An attempt to make the Colorado commission an elected body was proposed in 2008, but never made it on the ballot because it was so grossly underfunded.

Have you seen this?

http://www.nmwildlife.org/images/uploads/NMWF_Special_Report_-_Rebuilding_the_Trust.pdf



Casey

Yeah, some of us continue to try and build an effective consensus among sportsmen in New Mexico. So far, the transition team of the new governor has pretty much ignored attempts by several sportsmen's organizations to sit down and talk.

They have indicated that they will permit the current members of the Game and Fish Commission to serve out their terms, instead of demanding resignations from all of them as Richardson did when he first took office. Unlikely that any change will come from that direction.

This is a short legislative session (60 days, in odd-numbered years) and it will be dominated by budget battles. In the meantime, we will be fighting some battles, but the real effort to effect change will undoubtedly come in 2012.

Don't know how long it's been since you bought one, but last year NR antlerless tags were $352 and this year they are $345. If you get a tag in the public draw, that is all that you need. If you received a "transferable authorization", either through purchase or as a gift, you must still buy a NR license from NM DGF. Most people also buy a $5 habitat stamp and a $4 "access validation". Most of the transferable authorizations for nonresidents are sold. If you buy one, you will still have to buy the $345 nonresident license from NM DGF.

If I apply in Arizona for a NR deer or elk license, I must also buy a NR general hunting license. If I am not drawn, I get the money that I advanced for the deer or elk tag refunded (minus an application fee), but do not get a refund on the general hunting license. New Mexico does not do this now, but there is a consensus developing that we should do as the other states do to us.

I know that the residents of the great state of New Mexico may think that, making out of state hunters buy a license just to apply for a tag is a good idea, but if you reduce the amount of tags available to NR to 10%, then the cost for applying for NR tags could become to cost prohibitive to many that may or may not draw a tag. This might not generate additional income if NR applicants for tags drops off dramatically.

One thing that was explained to me is that the Agricultural industry has a great influence on the game laws as they own most of the wintering forage areas If the DOW shuts them out,they start crying game damage and lock up thier land even tighter than it is now.

However, the outfitters just want what is best for them and thier greed, many times wanting to push the other hunters out.

The problem with archery season and muzzle loader season to some extent is that they were inteneded in the early days to satisfy a small group of hunters. Now that group has grown to the extent tha they want to influence big game laws to suit themselves.
Not necessarily bad as about any large group wants to press any issues that are better for them.

I suspect this will lead to additioanl court litigation about nonresident fees vs resident fees

I have been forced to become involved in these issues due to some work that I do for one of my clients, a sportsmen's group. As a result of concessions made to ranchers over the past 30 years, only 30 percent of the licenses for pronghorn antelope issued in New Mexico each year are available for resident sportsmen in the public drawing. The pool of available tags in the public draw are now allocated in this way: ten percent of the tags in the random draw are reserved for nonresidents, twelve percent are reserved for applicants who have an agreement with a guide or outfitter and the remaining 78 percent are reserved for resident applicants. Doesn't sound so bad, does it?

In reality, approximately 70 percent of the antelope licenses go to nonresident hunters, as landowners get about 60 percent of ALL the available tags through "transferable authorizations". They sell these for anywhere from $1,500 or so up to as much as the market will bear. Landowners are free to sell them for whatever the market will bring. A few are certainly given to family and/or friends, but the bulk of them are sold to nonresidents who are willing to spend the money for a "hunt of a lifetime" or who only want to hunt antelope once every few years. In addition, most of the tags allotted for guides and outfitters are bought by nonresidents, as well.

I know hunters who have been applying for an antelope tag in the public draw for more than 20 years who have never been drawn. (New Mexico doesn't do preference points.) With elk it's not quite that bad, but about half of the available tags go to nonresidents every year, again because of the distribution of transferable authorizations (TAs).

Landowners obviously like this system and justify it on the basis that they provide food, water and habitat for the critters and deserve to receiver some value in return. With the Jennings Law, referred to above, a rancher who wants more tags has huge amount of leverage. He can shoot animals "depredating" his property if NM DGF decides that he is not eligible for more tags. We have had several high profile cases over the last few years where landowners whose requests for an increase in the number of TAs were denied. They responded by simply going out and shooting animals in incredible numbers. They are not required to do anything with the carcasses--they simply have to call the local game warden and tell him to come and get them. Most go to waste. In almost every one of these cases, the landowner has refused offers from NM DGF to construct game proof fencing to protect their property and/or crops. What they really want are the TAs as it is easier to sell TAs as opposed to raising and selling calves, alfalfa or some other crop.

Neither the NM Department of Game and Fish nor the NM Game Commission have the balls to address this out of kilter situation through changes in the regulations, nor do they have the cojones to try and address it through legislation. The fact is that a few thousand ranchers wield a lot more influence in the legislature than do the 60,000 or so resident hunters who apply for licenses in the public drawings each year. Past attempts to address inequities have resulted in ranchers successfully lobbying for punitive laws that punish the department and further hinder it's ability to manage game animals for the larger public good.

Legislation has been introduced in the current legislative session to do away with the allocation of antelope licenses for outfitters and guides. If this survives (which doesn't seem likely) it will result in a grand total of 356 additional licenses in the public drawing for antelope next year. The number of TAs will remain the same (or maybe increase).

Almost all of the New Mexico hunters that have attended public meetings on this subject have indicated that they would have no problem if the department doubled the resident license fees if it meant that it would significantly increase their chances of drawing a tag. With antelope, restricting the number of TAs to one or two per ranch and doubling the resident license fee is a wash for the department, financially. Administering the program that issues TAs costs the department about $300,000/year. Putting most of those tags back in the public drawing and doubling license fee would return just about that much to the department. For the average hunter, it would mean that his chances of drawing an antelope tag in any given year would triple. If the same thing were done with elk, his chances would just about double.

Is it any wonder that we look at Colorado and Arizona (and other western states) and want to have similar distribution of opportunities to hunt native big game in our home state?

Well said mudhen, I have no problem with RO. tags, the UW. tags and SCR. are the biggest rip off going.

What about nonresidents who can't afford landowner tags? Guess we're just screwed again... Been applying for antelope 14 yrs and never drawn. Glad I've been building pref points in CO and WY as they may be the only place left to go...There is no general hunting license available to NR's so what will that cost???

You are correct. General hunting licenses for nonresidents went away. Things are going to change with respect to the distribution of licenses. It may take a few years. Nonetheless, ten percent of 7,000 is still a lot more than ten percent of 2,500. Under the changes that we have proposed, the odds of a nonresident drawing a tag would triple, as well.

Many years ago,I think in the mid seventies NM sportsmen got together and sued the game department over a simlair issue I think. Maybe it is that time agian.

What's the current status of the bill? Has it been voted on?
When does it come up for a vote, if not?
Will it potentially affect this year's hunting seasons?

The New Mexico Wildlife Federation and at least two community sportsmen's clubs have retained counsel and examined potential grounds for legal action. All are waiting to see exactly what transpires during this legislative session, as well as what the new governor does or does not do with the Game and Fish Commission before deciding on how best to proceed.

Time for change,,,

"Time for change,,,"

ABSOLUTELEY! So many non-res think we do not want them, but i isn't true, we just want the LO wellfare and other tag give aways to stop! Jennings law needs the ax as well. It boils down to we all love to hunt and want what is fair and best for the game.

Good luck to all who apply!