SB 312 - eliminating outfitter set asides.

[VikingsGuy]

Gosh it drives me nuts when people are only public land advocates when it suits them.

Lasting coalitions require win wins all around. In any number of areas you see coalitions fall apart when one group is taken for granted. The amount of $$$ put into our conservation model by citizens who are “NR” for the purpose of western elk hunting far exceeds that invested by the “R”s. And I am not just talking about tags - I am talking about tax dollars. So if lowly NRs are funding this boat, not too surprising that once in a while they want to steer.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Lasting coalitions require win wins all around. In any number of areas you see coalitions fall apart when one group is taken for granted. The amount of $$$ put into our conservation model by citizens who are “NR” for the purpose of western elk hunting far exceeds that invested by the “R”s. And I am not just talking about tags - I am talking about tax dollars. So if lowly NRs are funding this boat, not too surprising that once in a while they want to steer.

I’d like to think the wonder of our public land trust is not dependent on hunting. I see the point, but that’s a selfish what’s in it for me approach to it.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I’d like to think the wonder of our public land trust is not dependent on hunting. I see the point, but that’s a selfish what’s in it for me approach to it.

I agree, but to us flat landers, at times it seems like every issue related to "public lands" is driven fully by the preferences of the locals but paid for by us. A perception that true or not, undercuts the coallition and we would be well advised to be attentive to its effects.

 

[1_pointer]

VG has that pulse taken correctly, IME. Lots of folks, especially those "out West" may not like it or agree with the rationale, but it is the reality.

 

[VikingsGuy]

VG has that pulse taken correctly, IME. Lots of folks, especially those "out West" may not like it or agree with the rationale, but it is the reality.

Let's start with the simple fact that 96% of the $20B spent in the US for fish, wildlife and conservation is provided by non-hunters. Of that lowly 4% we do fund, the demographics alone suggest 90% of that is from outside the mountain west states. So, should 100% of the rules be set by 0.4% of the funders? At some point broader society will catch on and demand a bigger voice.

Edit: I also read even in the area of Pittman-Robertson funding that only 15% of the funds generate can be tied to hunting related purposes - the bulk is generated by "non-hunting" spending.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

VG has that pulse taken correctly, IME. Lots of folks, especially those "out West" may not like it or agree with the rationale, but it is the reality.

Based on this rationale, a rancher should never support wildernesses he can’t graze in.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Based on this rationale, a rancher should never support wildernesses he can’t graze in.

No - it is not about whether you should support it - it is whether you should have a fair voice in the decisions. Most of us on any topic are underwhelmed with, "you just write the check and shut up - we know better than you the right way to spend your funds".

It's breaking this false sense of self-reliance in the mountain west. WY and MT are the biggest "welfare states" in the country, yet they pretend they have it all covered. Fine, run your state how you like, but run it with your own money. But that will never happen because they would be immediately bankrupt - they would make Detroit and Chicago look like pillars of economic prudence.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

No - it is not about whether you should support it - it is whether you should have a fair voice in the decisions. Most of us on any topic are underwhelmed with, "you just write the check and shut up - we know better than you the right way to spend your funds".

I’m not sure we’re arguing the same point.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I’m not sure we’re arguing the same point.

Possibly not.

 

[VikingsGuy]

So, my point is that in my experience, too often when folks living outside the mountain west challenge assumptions about how mountain west public lands and wildlife are managed we are told to "shut up" as we are non-res. At the same time we are encouraged to think bigger than ourselves and support this important notion of nature conservation with our votes, out voices and our $$$$, particularly as those help the moutain west. Add to that, at times a sense that we need more "public land owners" but we don't want them to actually become "public land users" which is offputting to say the least.

So, I am saying that as an advocate for our public lands and the American conservation model, I believe we have to build a bigger tent - allow other voices, concede some issues important to our comrads in this fight and more quickly consider perspectives and approaches that we may not like or may be strange to us for the betterment of the whole. That a state-centric model may be anachronistic when we actually look at the issues we face and where the dollars are coming from.

We also need to look in the mirror and shed the myth that the mountain west states are in fact the primary funders of these activities - they are not - they are the primary recipients of other people's money and maybe they should listen to those other people a little more.

Too often we flat landers are told we are clueless and just don't get it - but we aren't morons and much of what we see is an entrenched incumbancy that benefits from the status quo and has no reason to change. Well good for them - but if they get to act in their selfish interests, don't poke fingers when others do the same.

And maybe the status quo voices are right. And maybe us flat landers just don't get it and we should just stay home. And when we stay home we should make sure our legislators and $$$ are focused on our own local public land and sportsman's issues and WY and MT can find their own congressional votes and billions to spend.

But for now I choose to stay in the discussion, for better or for worse. Preserving our wild lands is worth it - even if we have to hit each over the head once in a while.

 

[VikingsGuy]

And after that, I need to switch to decaf

 

[jabber]

Instead of the current 84/6/10 split for resident/NR/Outfitter, it would go to a straight 90/10 split for R/NR. There would be no special Outfitter pool anymore.


At the end of the day, more tags for me as a NM resident sounds great.

And I apologize if this has been mentioned elsewhere, but the even better news for you is that us greedy NR's are going to pick up the lost revenue of going to 90% R's by increasing the cost of a standard elk tag.

 

[Labman]

This petition against the Bill has managed to rack up almost 1k signatures in less than 12 hrs. Sign it if you wish.

3,877 people signed and won this petition

Save Hunting & Fishing in New Mexico!

chng.it

 

[VikingsGuy]

Other rants aside, it is interesting that this in advancing in NM while the opposite is advancing in MT.

 

[NMGuy]

And I apologize if this has been mentioned elsewhere, but the even better news for you is that us greedy NR's are going to pick up the lost revenue of going to 90% R's by increasing the cost of a standard elk tag.

I crunched the numbers on elk tags and somewhere around an $8 hike across the board would have more than made up the difference on that species. An $8 I would gladly pay, but if they want to saddle you "greedy NR's" with it, I suppose that's fine too. Just the cost of playing the game I guess.

 

[hank4elk]

Call me stupid,but I think it's crazy I only paid $91 for a bull tag as a resident in 2021.
But that's another reason we are in the 48th place in one thing,education and top 5 in Fed assistance.
$700 is still less than any state I can think of for a NR tag.

On the petition,I could see that coming. Lot's of $ coming in from outfitters lobby & huge ranchers against the bill. Mostly non-resident owners by the way..............They'll spin it full anti-hunting for sure.

Suprized they didn't add a full stop to E-plus. That would be too woke PC this year.
One thing I do know. If they do, they'll need more than a jennings law................
This the wild west after all,outside of Albacrackie & SF.

I support it and will wear my Patagonia under my Skre gear.

 

[dan.kirkpatrick]

personally i just wish they would swap the 10% outfitter allotment with the 6% d i y pool,,but keep it as 84 res/16 non-res set up

 

[1_pointer]

Based on this rationale, a rancher should never support wildernesses he can’t graze in.

Correct. That rationale is not uncommon among even sportsmen when it comes to public lands, especially in places without access to it.

 

[Pajarito]

It's hard to see this as progress when it would reduce overall opportunity.

It reduces the opportunity for outfitters but increases opportunity for DIY resident and nonresident hunters. Being a NM resident who despises the outfitter industry here in NM, I am standing and applauding. This gives a bigger draw pool to both nonresidents and residents and takes away some of the special treatment the outfitters have been getting.

 

[mariano742]

Could you not hear the sound of their HT capes trailing in the Jetstream behind the onslaught of their weapons of wisdom?!

Instead of the current 84/6/10 split for resident/NR/Outfitter, it would go to a straight 90/10 split for R/NR. There would be no special Outfitter pool anymore.

What Mariano is so passionately trying to express is that this can be seen as a reduction in NR tags since most of that 10% outfitter pool is currently used by NR hunters. You will have more people competing for a smaller pool of total tags in some areas, which will likely decrease NR odds. I suspect other areas might not see as much of an impact due to being poor elk units, but only time will tell.

At the end of the day, more tags for me as a NM resident sounds great.

an honest summary!