Big changes in New Mexico

[artelkhunter]

Just wanted everone to know the New Mexico G&F have been hit with a lot of pressure from the local media and in state sportsman groups to reduce the number of non residence tags to 10%. This would mirror their neighbor Arizona.  The land owner tags for elk and antelope are also being looked at.  The problem as I see it is that most of the land were talking about hunting through out the state is federal land that we all own.  I personally hope this is a issue the court have to decide. Non-residence hunters for to long have been used and abused by the western states.

[Andy Cooper]

NMG&F has a LOT of problems...not the least of which is the ranchers who make the rules. I'll likely not ever hunt NM again when I leave. As a resident, I don't like not being drawn because so many from out of state apply; however, I've been on the other side of the state line, too, and understand the argument re: ownership of federal land. Back when licenses were all OTC, there were way more muleys, but fewer elk, in the areas I usually hunt. Now there are lots of elk and the ranchers control access...even to parts of the Lincoln Nat'l Forest. They outfit in there while keeping the public out because they control the surrounding state lands.  :mad:

[coaster500]

That's to bad. It's tough enough to draw a tag now.

Not to change the subject but ... If ranchers that are issued landowner tags aren't their lands open to people who draw tags in the unit that the ranch is in? I may be misinformed but this is what one outfitter told me? That the ranch must give access? You have to do some homework and find out what ranches were issued tags.
I have hunted public lands in Lincoln and access was not a problem there.

[ermont]

Public access is a joke in New Mexico. Landowners are SUPPOSED to give access in return for tags. Many "FORGET" to unlock gates and by the time you track anybody down the morning is lost. There is another area called the checkerboard I hunted once. Public land intespersed with private. You never really knew where you were until ranch hands came up and harrassed you about being on private property. I LIVE in New Mexico but I HUNT out of state. We got a new governor who I have high hopes may end the politics in our game commission but that remains to be seen.

[Ray_G]

My response is not to diminish any problems with the NMG&F or the frustration of trying to obtain non-res tags, so please don't think of me as an elitist.  I also don't know the state laws for NM.

We hear the same argument about Federally managed land and non-resident tag availability in Idaho, too.  Idaho has the same 10% cap.  In Idaho by law, the game animals belong to the state, thus the residents and are managed by the IDF&G, no matter what land they are on.  In view of the law, you are free to come and recreate on Federally managed land to your heart's content but the state controls the issuance of hunting licenses and tags.  I would face the same frustration as you if I were to apply in any state's non-res draw, so I understand your frustrations.  

Unfortunately, the imported wolves are not being managed in the same vein at this time but that is a whole 'nother matter    :mad:

[Ray_G]

Regarding ermont's comments:  we face the same problems with access to state and federally managed lands.  Some of these lands are landlocked by private property and it can be a booger to get to public land in certain areas.  Of course, we do have large areas of public land with easy access also, so that is where I hunt.  Just the nature of the beast, I guess.

[artelkhunter]

Guys the landowner issue is divided by two types of landowner tags. This is decided by the owner. Its is either unit wide tag, in which the landowner must allow trespass to all who possess a tag for that hunt in that unit, or a ranch only tag, in which the hunter must stay on the private land in which the tag has been issued. This allow the landowner to use the tags the way he wants to.  There is the argument that the landowners feed the elk almost year round in most cases,  so they should benifit from the sale of the tags. Sadly it gets down to a money issue.  The best ranches get the highest price for there hunts. The only way around this is through the draw, if the tags are reduced for non-residence hunters it will force the price of these tags to go up and will turn NM into another Arizona or Utah were the avg Joe may draw a tag once in a life time.  At the moment 10% of the nonres tags go in the open draw and 12% to the outfitter draw. Either way it is hard to draw a tag in any of the better units.

[artelkhunter]

10-4 on the wolves Ray!!!

[Andy Cooper]

Originally posted by coaster500:
If ranchers that are issued landowner tags aren't their lands open to people who draw tags in the unit that the ranch is in? I may be misinformed but this is what one outfitter told me? That the ranch must give access? You have to do some homework and find out what ranches were issued tags.
I have hunted public lands in Lincoln and access was not a problem there.

The problem lies with the state lands that often surround federal lands, or that contain the access points to federal land. The state lands are supposed to be available for access, but many ranchers simply lock their gates and cannot be found during the season. I contacted the Pinon Cattle Co. one year and requested permission to cross their land...state land...to access part of the Lincoln National Forest. They denied access, by phone, saying there wasn't a huntable population deer where I wanted to go. They directed me to a different access point that proved to be impassable, even in my highly modified Jeep. It was difficult to even walk (read climb) that place. They wouldn't even allow me access by foot through their ranch. They also outfit high-dollar elk hunts based from their ranch hunting into the area I used to drive to.

As far as land owner tags go, they are issued to the land owners, who usually sell them either to outfitters or individual hunters. Simply having a tag for a particular unit doesn't guarantee access, unless it can be totally accessed by federal property.

One year, the elk in unit 12 (IIRC) had become competitive with one of the rancher's cattle for grazing. He was on the board (the name of which I've forgotten) and he & his chronies simply made OTC unlimited licenses available. Their aim, as stated to some, was to eradicate the elk from the unit, so his cattle would have more to graze.  :mad:  

The other thing about some of the ranches in NM is that the ranchers often lease federal lands for a few $ and acre, for grazing, then deny access because they have cattle on the public lands.

[artelkhunter]

Again, it depends on whether the landowner tag ia a unit wide tag or a RANCH only tag.  If the landowner sells there tags as UNIT wide then they have to allow tresspass by all who have unit wide landowner tags or a NMDW drawn tag.  If the landowner tag is issued as RANCH only that ranch is the only area that can be hunted. And consequently the ranch owner does not have to allow trespass by other tag holders.

[Andy Cooper]

Hi Artelkhunter,

The only experience I have with landowner tags are antelope tags, which were issued for a particular ranch, not for a particular unit.

[coaster500]

URGENT NEW MEXICO ACTION ITEM

Email or call your Senators now before they VOTE !!!

New Mexico Senate Bill SB196 has recently passed the Senate Conservation Committee and is heading to the Senate Fiscal Committee. Regular non-resident applicants will be limited to 2% of the total number of tags where guided hunters (residents and non-residents) may get 8% of the tags for any given hunt!

New Mexico currently allocates permits in the antelope, Mule deer, and elk drawing as follows: 78% to residents, 12% to non-residents contracted with an outfitter, and 10% to regular non-resident applicants. This bill in the New Mexico legislature would eliminate the current allocation to non-residents giving 90% to residents and 8% to non-residents and residents who contract with an outfitter and only 2% to regular non-resident applicants.

In addition to the split the bill considers implementing the requirement to purchase a non-refundable hunting license to apply which is estimated at $90 for non-residents as well as other non-refundable application fees.

It is our understanding that the changes listed below have strong support and have a great chance to pass:

  - Permit allocation: 90% to resident, 8% to non-residents and residents with an outfitter, and 2% to regular non-resident applicants.
  - Add a required $90 non-fundable hunting license to apply (plus regular application fees per species)
  - Still no point system
  - Allocation may apply to other species as well (sheep, oryx, and ibex)

Bill details:  http://www.nmlegis.gov/lcs/_session.aspx?chamber=S&legtype=B&legno=%20196&year=11  

Bill amendments/committee report:  http://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/11%20Regular/bills/senate/SB0196CO1.pdf  

We have made it very easy to submit your comments to every Senator in New Mexico. Simply enter your information and comments below and each member will be emailed.

If this passes it will greatly affect all non-residents opportunity to hunt New Mexico. No matter what your opinion is of these potential changes to New Mexico permit allocation and the application process, we encourage you to voice your thoughts. New Mexico needs to hear from non-residents!

[artelkhunter]

It is truly tragic that as a non resident hunter I have never been treated with any amount of parity when applying for big game tags in western states.  New mexico has always been a state that has had my addition,one because its close to my home state of Oklahoma, but mostly because I'm an elk hunter.  I've drawn one tag in 15 years in New Mexico system of draw. I've bought land owner tags, not because I wanted to but because it was the only way I could get a tag.  Now it looks as though I may never draw a tag again.  The federal lands western states are allowed to manage belong to all of America.  Not just a select few that reside there.  Do I believe residence should have an advantage in the draw? Sure.  But to have a 10-1 disadvantage is just not fair. Period.  I guess the courts will ultimatly decide whether its fair or not. Art Smith

Muskogee OK

[Iowa Tom L.]

This issue has already been decided in the courts.  All non-migratory game animals are owned by the residents of that state and the state is entrusted to manage them for the primary benefit of current and future residents.  If the resource is large enough to share with nonresident than they are given the opportunity to enjoy a portion of it.

It doesn't matter if the state has lots of public land or not because in North America land ownership does not equate to wildlife ownership.  The public lands of any state are open to all for recreation but just because those lands are owned by the U.S. government does not mean the U.S. public has equal rights to the game animals.

It is perfectly legal for a state government to restrict access to nonresidents while favoring residents because it is the resident's resource, not the nation's when it comes to consumptive use of that resource.

If a state has a high-demand resource it cannot service the desires of the nation and maintain that resource.  Access to the resource must be limited and residents should be favored as they are the ones who live there.  A nonresident should not expect equal treatment because they do not deserve it.  You are part owner of the wildlife resources of your state and New Mexico residents are the owners of theirs.

It is ironic to ask nonresidents to call NM legislators to encourage them to not favor residents in the allocation of the state's wildlife resources.  It is the residents that voted these people into office and it will be residents who keep them in office, not nonresidents.  If the legislators have sold out resident interests in the past with regards to access to their resources, they have violated a trust and I wish NM residents luck in regaining the access to THEIR wildlife that they deserve.  Why should nonresidents have greater access to the high-demand wildlife resources of NM than they do in other states?

We all need to appreciate the wildlife resources of our own state and be thankful when we have the opportunity to be a guest of another state.  And a person always has the option of moving to another state and becoming a resident there if access to the wildlife resources is that important to you.  Sure, you would have to give up some things and make some concessions; just like those who already live there have.

[artelkhunter]

Well Iowa Tom we sure all have the right to our voices to be heard requardless of whether we are residents or non. I will assure you that this matter has not be decided in the courts on this particuler issure.  Every American has what is called prevailing rights. In the case of New Mexico they have for years followed Colorado in allowing 20 plus percent of the tags to non-residents.  Tax dollars from all America support the funding of national forest. Employment and up keep needed to maintain these areas are further paid from sporting good sales tax nation wide.  I'm well aware that Iowa restricts non-residents to a very small allocation. My home state of Oklahoma allows anyone to apply and hunt big game in our state.  Maybe this is a practice other states should follow.

[coaster500]

I just hope Tom that you don't have a desire to hunt Elk in a western state as the opportunities are fast becoming harder to obtain. It is as Art says a truly tragic for us, our kids and theirs. I hope they bring elk back to Iowa for you it may soon be your only chance for a tag.

Good luck

Kip

[snow leopard]

ryan; i tried to click on the links you provided and was told IE could not access them. (or something) is there any other way? thanks.

[coaster500]

Check your security settings. I just opened both links and they worked fine. These links are the web addresses?

Good luck

[Iowa Tom L.]

You have me Art on "prevailing rights" as I know nothing about them and could find no mention of them in a search relating to wildlife resources.  But, Pittman-Robertson dollars are allocated to the state agencies for state projects, and are not utilized to pay for the salaries of Forest Service employees or for general Forest maintenance although state and federal agencies will collaborate on projects at times with PR dollars being utilized.  This money is distributed based on the size of the state and the number of hunting licenses it sells.

Iowa with its "very small allocation" of nonresident licenses provides a good example of how nonresident demand can vary among states.  The neighboring states of Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin all sell nonresident deer hunting licenses over-the-counter.  In these states nonresident hunters make up from less than 3% to a little over 5% of each state's deer hunters.  

In Iowa, with its "very small allocation" of nonresident licenses, nonresident hunters make up over 5% of its deer hunters.  The difference is purely demand; what one would consider to be "wide open" in one state is suddenly "restrictive" in another because the demand is higher.  

If an individual is a resident of a state without a wildlife resource that is in high demand, over-the-counter license sales work fine.  But for other states it does not work as well.

Since elk would not be a good fit for Iowa; a state that is dominated almost entirely by row crops, I will not hope for them here.  But I trust elk hunting opportunities will remain available and understand a license may not be able to be obtained on an annual basis just as some nonresidents find when their desire is to hunt Iowa whitetails.

[artelkhunter]

Well Tom it is clear that you are NOT an ELK hunter and never intend to be.  If you were you would fine the trend western states are following is disturbing.  U.S. outfitters did win a law suit over non-resident tags in federal court against the state of Arizona unfortunately it was over turned by appeal.  I do not believe that this case set presidence because that state had never allow more than 10% tag allowance.  And you may want to study up a bit on the funding of the Pitman Robertson Act. Those funds can and are being used by both state and federal agencies.