Proposal to eliminate non-resident sheep tags in New Mexico

[hank4elk]

Spot on BF.
I would like to see more critters in NM and conservation and working to increase herd strength is key.

I would love to see sheep here like they once were. Deer too.
Elk are doing just fine.

 

[hank4elk]

Oh ,
90/10 split, OIL sheep tags for all,same with Gila,Caldera,etc elk.
Earn a second chance with boots on the ground conservation work in the unit.
Close some deer units

R price increase to offset losses if so needed.

Good luck outfitters...lol

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Earn a second chance with boots on the ground conservation work in the unit.

Agree with everything except this.

 

[hank4elk]

So one and done. I'm cool with that.

Some else can shoot my sheep if they get put back throughout their old range. I'd love to see them in the Gila & Apache forests,back in the Zuni, through the desert country.

 

[hank4elk]

It does encourage me to see the Desert Sheep back in the hills east of the Rio Grande again. In 10 years I am seeing them along roads where there were few if any in the area.

 

[BradA]

I am worried with the fact that all the states are trying to edge out more and more opportunities for nr, because then when the anti hunters come to attach and nr have nothing to loose or gain how much effort will be given toward that state? And as hunters we need all the help we can get to try and protect our sport.

 

[ShinOakMZ]

Easy political win while they continue to whore out 50% of their bull elk to nonresidents.

NR’s drew less than 5% of the elk tags last year. And NMFG won’t allow NR’s to hunt cows.

 

[MTGomer]

NR’s drew less than 5% of the elk tags last year. And NMFG won’t allow NR’s to hunt cows.

I said bull elk and I didn’t say “draw”

Nearly half the bull elk tags don’t even get put in the draw because they go into the e-plus system. These are almost exclusively sold to outfitters/NR

16% of bull tags in the draw are for NR. 10% guided, 6% unguided.

it is very kind of the state to reserve the cow crumbs entirely for residents.

As a resident of a neighboring state, I actually would kind of like it if NM gave residents back some of their bull elk tags via elimination of outfitter set asides and have NR a chance to draw a cow tag. I’d put a cow as a 3rd and definitely as a 4th choice.

 

[ShinOakMZ]

I said bull elk and I didn’t say “draw”

Nearly half the bull elk tags don’t even get put in the draw because they go into the e-plus system. These are almost exclusively sold to outfitters/NR

16% of bull tags in the draw are for NR. 10% guided, 6% unguided.

it is very kind of the state to reserve the cow crumbs entirely for residents.

As a resident of a neighboring state, I actually would kind of like it if NM gave residents back some of their bull elk tags via elimination of outfitter set asides and have NR a chance to draw a cow tag. I’d put a cow as a 3rd and definitely as a 4th choice.

I know what you meant, but I have trouble counting E plus since none of those tags are in my realm of possibility. And if they did away with E plus it’s not going to benefit anyone.

As a neighboring NR myself, I agree completely with doing away with the outfitter welfare and I’d put in for a cow tag every year if they’d let me as well.

 

[TexanSam]

Finally, yes I think it would be more beneficial for resident hunters to spend their time, money and effort improving hunting in the states they reside in.

This apply all over hells half acre is a recent trend. Many of the people I grew up hunting with never hunted anywhere as nrs. Those that did so maybe hunted a neighboring state they shared a border with.

Why stop at wildlife and not limit all natural resources to residents only?

You wanna ski in the national forest in colorado? Better have a green license plate.
Surf hawaii? Locals only.
Forage for morels in a park on the wrong side of KC? Jail time
Hike up to cathedral rock if you're from california? Eat s**t

Why do this? Because all these things are held in trust for the residents of that state right? Everyone else can legally F*** off.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Ooooh boy…

 

[NoWiser]

NR elk tags are expensive, but cheap compared to my personal costs and time I’ve donated to get a local RMEF chapter up and running over the last 5-6 years. No doubt it has been a worthwhile endeavor and we’ve raised a ton of money, but the vast majority of that money goes to states that I constantly see chipping away at NR opportunity. I’d be lying if I said that every time I see it, I lose a little motivation. I’m tempted to shift the majority of my time and money towards local hunting and trapping organizations.

I don’t blame states for wanting more opportunities for their residents, but I can’t be blamed for shifting my conservation dollars away from places where I don’t get the opportunity to hunt. I’m not there yet, but someday it’s possible.

 

[TN_Rifle_Junkie]

Really?

What are nr sheep tags in new Mexico, 3k?

Total of 7, a whopping $21k...won't even pay for half a new truck to haul materials to a guzzler.

The new Mexico residents would be wayyy better off selling one tag via auction or raffle and give 6 more tags to residents.

Raffle would be the best bet, everyone can play and no nr whining they don't have a chance.

This is exactly how TN does its elk draw system.

One to a resident youth.

One to a raffle with unlimited tickets

6 for archery season in 6 units

6 for rifle season in 6 units

Non-residents can apply for either archery or rifle, but it is VERY VERY rare one is given away to a NR.

 

[TN_Rifle_Junkie]

NR elk tags are expensive, but cheap compared to my personal costs and time I’ve donated to get a local RMEF chapter up and running over the last 5-6 years. No doubt it has been a worthwhile endeavor and we’ve raised a ton of money, but the vast majority of that money goes to states that I constantly see chipping away at NR opportunity. I’d be lying if I said that every time I see it, I lose a little motivation. I’m tempted to shift the majority of my time and money towards local hunting and trapping organizations.

I don’t blame states for wanting more opportunities for their residents, but I can’t be blamed for shifting my conservation dollars away from places where I don’t get the opportunity to hunt. I’m not there yet, but someday it’s possible.

Being a board member in TN myself, we are lucky by having three resident elk herds. The RMEF has done wonderful things to help out the Cherokee herd, Cataloochee herd, and the Blue Royal heard near KY.

We also raise a lot of money for RMEF, but in kind, they help us with weed control, viewing towers and online cameras, and a lot of other on the ground assistance to include habitat purchasing power (not money). Our herds are growing and are healthy because of the RMEF and the local donations and the sweat equity of a very small group of locals who love our elk.

Hopefully, you will be able to talk with your area supervisor to get an idea of where the money goes, you might be surprised how much is reinvested into the elk in surrounding places.

 

[goodhunt]

These are always painful discussions to follow. They illustrate how much demand our society has put on the landscapes and what amount of opportunity the shrinking game numbers can provide.

I have seen shrinking opportunity happening since I started hunting multiple states. I see it in my home state. Most often, as numbers and opportunity shrink the default position is to argue about how to allocate the diminishing resource rather than the benefits of working hard to increase the resource.

I never expected western states to undergo the crazy population growth of the last 10-15 years. And I see it continuing. As that happens, I expect those residents to want more of their own wildlife opportunity and I had best accept that hunting out of state will become more and more difficult. As it becomes more difficult, I expect those with power and resources to try leverage the table to their benefit through more outfitter programs, more tags that allow one to buy a ticket to the front of the line, and the host of other machinations we see employed.

I fully respect, and anticipate, residents to do what they feel is best with their wildlife resource. I will adjust accordingly as that changes. Pertinent to the NM sheep topic, I dropped that many years ago when the price rocketed and the allocation dropped. No sense worrying about it. That is what the State of NM decided. I made my decision based on that.

There are some realities that aren't going to change. Wildlife is a scarce resource and getting more scarce as we breed ourselves, and the wild things, out of habitable space. States are provided the authority to manage wildlife, no matter who owns the ground it stands on. Non-residents provide a great amount of funding and advocacy toward the cause of wildlife they may never get a chance to enjoy. Residents of western states pay a huge price for their hunting in the form of economic opportunity costs. Society, including most hunters, is usually too busy until it's too late. We will spend more time arguing than working to improve the outcomes we argue about.

These are just realities I've experienced in years of being involved in hunting and conservation. I can ignore those realities, but ignoring them doesn't change them and likely doesn't result in any progress.

I've boiled it down to a few constants as it relates to my ability to have more hunting opportunity in my home state, or in states I dream of hunting as a non-resident. It takes animals and space to do what is my life's passion; hunting. That requires conservation work.

1. Conservation is always difficult - If it was easy we would have solved all the problems a long time ago. Hell, if it was easy, they'd call it "golf."​

​

2. Conservation is always uncomfortable - No matter what cause you work toward for wild things and wild places, someone is going to be upset. Threads on this forum are often an example.​

​

3. Conservation is always inconvenient - We never get to put it on our calendars when the threats will arise or when opportunities present themselves. It is easy to be too busy, and we are all busy.​

​

4. Conservation is expensive - Always has been, always will be. It will get more expensive. You can't improve access with bake sales. Productive lands need management that isn funded by something more than selling calendars.​

One thing I can do toward the effort of more animals and better access is to engage in conservation efforts that benefit wildlife in all places, not just my back yard. I contribute time and money to national groups, to state affiliate chapters, to (insert here), because I expect that doing so helps all wildlife populations, whether I get to hunt them or not, whether they increase in my home state or some other state.

Watching this dynamic unfold is probably the biggest reason for my expanding dislike of point schemes. Those schemes just slant the table in favor of old gray-haired farts like me and fertilizes the mindset of fighting over a scarce resource due to having paid "something" and with "something" comes an expectation. It is the human condition to expect a return for paying a fee.

Now, rather than focus on what we can do to increase wildlife, we have crazy talk of suing Wyoming for changes to their Big 5, because we paid something. We have people threatening they are done funding conservation groups/efforts because they will get a smaller percentage of opportunity. Again, part or the human condition. But, doesn't mean it is our best path forward.

Whatever happens in NM or WY or AZ or (insert here), the best way to increase the opportunity that can be shared with non-residents is to support more conservation efforts. A lot of that gets done by volunteerism and "boots on the ground" among locals. And a lot of it is funded by non-residents with generous contributions. The combination of "Time, Talent, and Treasure" from all sources has been a proven model for success. Fighting, litigating, and elbowing each other to get to the front of the line for the chance to shoot the last buffalo is hardly the path that we have all benefitted from.

I am grateful that the average Hunt Talker does more with their time, talent, treasure, and advocacy than any group of hunters I know. Countless numbers of you raise huge amounts of money for wildlife, you spend immense hours advocating and volunteering, and do all of it with no expectation that it results in any personal benefit. Thanks to all of you. You are helping the wild places and the wild things we need for this activity we all love.

Carry on .............

I agree wholeheartedly with your 4 points and I think it would do a lot of hunters good to try to think about those things before engaging in these topics. That goes for both directions. Non residents, especially those from the east, need to consider their guest status to the wildlife resource before squealing everytime a western state starts to make changes to tag allocations. It is difficult, but instead of worrying about how a change may impact you, think about how the change may impact the resource. I know I could personally do a better job of that.

At the same time, residents of public land western states could, and should, do a much better job of acknowledging the benefits NR can help provide the resource.

I don't post a bunch on here, but I use the platform to stay abreast of issues that impact hunting and public lands. The complete animosity and contempt shown for NR the last few years is going to eventually cost everyone. I don't know buzz, and I'm sure he's done more than his fair share for conservation issues, but his approach to dealing with other potential allies who may disagree with him is costing the resource. Does he personally do enough to make up for what it costs? Maybe... But I highly doubt every resident hunter that shares his approach and mindset does. There is nuance to these topics, regardless of whether or not some only choose to see them in black and white.

Is the wildlife on those landlocked checkerboard parcels truly better off by opening up public access vs the limited human interaction they currently enjoy? Does that take a backseat to arbitrary lines drawn that may restrict a local resident from "their" public resource, on "their" public land. If you think it does, as I believe most on this site probably do, then what can you do to get some guy from Tennessee to agree with you? I can assure it's not say: f$@# you, this is my animal because I live inside another line, I don't want your help, we can deal with this ourselves. And as much as you may think you don't need Tennessee's help, those western states where these issues matter amount to less than 33% of the U.S. Senate and less than 8% of the U.S. House. California alone out represents all of them combined in the electoral college. Contrary to residents belief, the United States doesnt revolve around Wyoming, or Montana, or Utah, or Arizona, or New Mexico. Whether it's wanted or not, help will be needed by western hunting state residents when it comes to usage restrictions, land transfers and non wildlife resource management on "our" federal public lands.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but I'm pretty sure it isn't alienating and disparaging other hunters to feel like a boss on the internet.

 

[shootbrownelk]

The beauty is that you can and we invite it. Each region has a CDAC committee and residents and non residents are invited to comment. These comments are taken into account and tags are given out accordingly.

The Wisconsin DNR will take resident & non resident comments, study them very carefully, and then do what they intended to do before any comments were given. That's the way the Wisconsin DNR and the Commision has always been.

 

[JM77]

The complete animosity and contempt shown for NR the last few years is going to eventually cost everyone.

Pay attention, because right here is where you lost me.

 

[goodhunt]

Pay attention, because right here is where you lost me.

Agreed. "Complete" is probably too strong of a word. "Increasing" would probably be better. Regardless, it doesn't change my point that treating other hunters with contempt when discussing these issues will most likely result in negative consequences for all involved.

 

[WIbiggame]

The Wisconsin DNR will take resident & non resident comments, study them very carefully, and then do what they intended to do before any comments were given. That's the way the Wisconsin DNR and the Commision has always been.

You have obviously never gone to one of these meetings or sat on the committee so have a great week.

 

[Cheesehead]