New Mexico Outfitter Draw Set-Aside is Toast -Finally !

[D_Walt]

Flip side of the coin; How many people (residents) does the hunting outfitter business employ in NM? How many NM residents benefit from these jobs? Is it more or less the 3300 or so NM residents that will benefit from the additional tags? Figure a $3 million loss in tag fees, for the 3300 +- fewer NR tags. Then say one third of those were going guided, so 1100 fewer guided hunters @ $5k each (some more$, some probably less $) that’s $5.5 million lost for residents, and that’s not even counting the rest of NR spending. I bet my $ figures are way low. Ultimately it’s up to the residents (or rather, their elected representatives) of NM to determine how they wish to benefit from their wildlife. It is laughable to spin this as a positive for NR’s….we don’t have any say anyways (and that is not a problem).

 

[David58]

Some of the outfitters on Facebook are acting like it's the end of the world. Biggest bunch of cry babies I've seen yet

Yep. Landowner tags have gone up in price, but none of them go without a home. The outfitter just has to have a network to buy them, or has to spend the $$$ to get those tags (which means enough capital going after the draw and before the season to buy those LO tags). But I will say there is some good news in this, the outfitter grip in NM has been loosened a little bit. Not much, but it is a start.

David
ID (was NM)

 

[CMF]

The collective math favors both residents and DIY.

Can you elaborate...

 

[Pucky Freak]

Can you elaborate...

POGA has a nationwide agenda to carve away DIY big game hunting opportunity State-by-State. They cozy up with legislators and other persons of power, wealth, and authority to get outfitted clients a leg up on draws or just direct tags through a variety of methods. Any win builds their momentum to replicate the tactic elsewhere.

IMO the long game for the NR DIY is to support resident hunting priority rather than bemoan the sheer # of NR tags available. It creates a nationwide cultural cohesion to fight off mutual threats such as the OB3 public land sell-off, etc.

 

[Alabama]

It was 84% R 16% NR before this outfitter pool. If it's really about taking back tags from outfitters, then just go back to 84/16 or 85/15 to account for the Residents who were applying in the outfitter pool.

 

[Khunter]

Absolutely. It is ridiculous that they can easily make 1-2k off of these offers to get clients x3 draw odds without doing anything other than signing and submitting a piece of paper. I didn't believe it could be done until I heard about this and jumped in on it. Still didn't draw unfortunately.

It is such a scam. I have done it before and drawn a great elk tag and I still want to see it disappear along with EPLUS.

 

[CMF]

POGA has a nationwide agenda to carve away DIY big game hunting opportunity State-by-State. They cozy up with legislators and other persons of power, wealth, and authority to get outfitted clients a leg up on draws or just direct tags through a variety of methods. Any win builds their momentum to replicate the tactic elsewhere.

Never heard of em. I've heard of the Wyoming one. Are they really that much of a force beyond a state level? I just don't see outfitting like some giant company trying to take over.
Do you have some example stories?

IMO the long game for the NR DIY is to support resident hunting priority rather than bemoan the sheer # of NR tags available. It creates a nationwide cultural cohesion to fight off mutual threats such as the OB3 public land sell-off, etc.

I don't see how giving up opportunity is a winning long game for DIY NR's. We won't get it back. I agree on holding ground and pushing back on outfitter welfare, just not at the cost of giving up the little NR opportunities we have.

It was 84% R 16% NR before this outfitter pool. If it's really about taking back tags from outfitters, then just go back to 84/16 or 85/15 to account for the Residents who were applying in the outfitter pool.

Exactly.

 

[5yearcoueshunter]

It was 84% R 16% NR before this outfitter pool. If it's really about taking back tags from outfitters, then just go back to 84/16 or 85/15 to account for the Residents who were applying in the outfitter pool.

The outfitter pool has always been part of the law from what I can find and by memory as well. Our current quota was set in 2012. Before that the law was passed in 1997 which was 78% resident, 12% guided and 10% NR. Prior to 1997, there was no quota at all. Everyone was in the same pool. So there is no "go back" to 84/16 or 85/15, that never existed.

In terms of the AG opinion, it would be specific to the outfitter pool being unlawful, it won't be anything to do with NR quota. If he comes back that it is unlawful, it will be up to the legislature to make the % breakouts. 90/10 is just what is being talked about, doesn't mean that's what they have to change it to.

The intent behind the letter written to the AG is really about getting residents more tags, period. Yes this outfitter pool has always been controversial on principal and most think it should be repealed on that alone, but again this is really about resident tags.

 

[Pucky Freak]

I just don't see outfitting like some giant company trying to take over.
Do you have some example stories?

It’s an industry trade group with that solely represents job security of its members (guides).

IA - every General Assembly (2-yr legislative cycle) there are bills for outfitter deer tag set-asides.

MT - automatic PP for NR’s w/ a guide contract. Failed attempt the same year for a 60% NR outfitter pool.

WY - WOGA annual attempts, of a variety of measures to siphon tags to outfitted clients. 2025 and 2026 pushes for transferable LO tags

ID - outfitter tags successfully sheltered from the draw system overhaul in 2025. 2019 bill to siphon off outfitted tags.

Etc, etc. I don’t know that they have a coordinated “platform” or any attempt at conformity across jurisdictions. They compare notes and have a common playbook.

 

[D_Walt]

It’s an industry trade group with that solely represents job security of its members (guides).

IA - every General Assembly (2-yr legislative cycle) there are bills for outfitter deer tag set-asides.

MT - automatic PP for NR’s w/ a guide contract. Failed attempt the same year for a 60% NR outfitter pool.

WY - WOGA annual attempts, of a variety of measures to siphon tags to outfitted clients. 2025 and 2026 pushes for transferable LO tags

ID - outfitter tags successfully sheltered from the draw system overhaul in 2025. 2019 bill to siphon off outfitted tags.

Etc, etc. I don’t know that they have a coordinated “platform” or any attempt at conformity across jurisdictions. They compare notes and have a common playbook.

Politicians do tend to lend an ear to people/companies that are creating employment for their constituents. All industries have trade groups to lobby politicians to improve their industry. It’s not some grand conspiracy.

 

[Letthemgrow]

The intent behind the letter written to the AG is really about getting residents more tags, period. Yes this outfitter pool has always been controversial on principal and most think it should be repealed on that alone, but again this is really about resident tags.

Rigorous honesty is seldom practiced these days. Kudos.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

POGA has a nationwide agenda to carve away DIY big game hunting opportunity State-by-State. They cozy up with legislators and other persons of power, wealth, and authority to get outfitted clients a leg up on draws or just direct tags through a variety of methods. Any win builds their momentum to replicate the tactic elsewhere.

IMO the long game for the NR DIY is to support resident hunting priority rather than bemoan the sheer # of NR tags available. It creates a nationwide cultural cohesion to fight off mutual threats such as the OB3 public land sell-off, etc.

I see this dynamic a bit differently. I was completely unaware of the national outfitter conspiracy to steal away tags. I also don’t think NR hunters should be cheerleading the moves by resident hunter groups to draw down NR tags to the lowest amount possible. And I don’t think NR support matters that much to the outcome.

The cohesion I see making a difference here in Colorado is DIY resident hunters, non-resident hunters, and outfitters all working together to preserve our rich hunting traditions and defeat the powerful anti-hunting initiatives. And our outfitter community is critical to that fight, standing shoulder to shoulder with us.

That being said NM is very different place and public land access is also a key issue.

YMMV.

 

[Pucky Freak]

It’s not some grand conspiracy.

I was completely unaware of the national outfitter conspiracy to steal away tags.

As noted in my post #89 “they compare notes and have a common playbook”. It is just 201X [insert State] the same song and dance every time. You don’t have 14 organizations each inventing the wheel.

Western State big game tag cuts in one State affect the supply and demand in every other State. R’s, NR’s, LO’s, auction winners, and guided clients - We’re all plotting, scheming, strategizing, and vying to shoot the last buffalo.

Of the 5 groups, NR DIY’ers have the weakest position to advocate for our own future hunting opportunity. Bemoaning the loss of tags to R’s is a losing strategy - DIY R’s are about the only ones who will ally with us.

 

[Treeshark]

DIY R’s are about the only ones who will ally with us.

Let me know when that starts happening...

The only allies that a DIY NR really has in this whole mess are resident landowners.