SB 312 - eliminating outfitter set asides.

[VikingsGuy]

The current landowner tags offer pretty much all of that except the reasonable fee part. And the no tag allocation preference unless you don't consider a $5,000+ check to be a preference.

I am fine with limited personal landowner tags to encourage/reward the role of landowners in wildlife management, but don't like transferable tags. All NR non-landowners should be subject to the same draw system.

 

[Labman]

I am fine with limited personal landowner tags to encourage/reward the role of landowners in wildlife management, but don't like transferable tags. All NR non-landowners should be subject to the same draw system.

If the goal is to reward landowners for their contribution to wildlife management why is a transferable tag a bad thing? Not everyone hunts. You could think of an endless number of examples, but how about a single mother who owns some great elk ground and wants to pay for her kids education, or a guy who likes to golf and could care less about hunting? If the incentive to sell that tag wasn’t there then those folks aren’t going to continue to contribute to managing that wildlife. There is no incentive.
In all honesty, who cares what they do with the tag, or $ from the tag if they sell it? This type of deal has bugged me since my Marine Corps days when I earned pay/vacation. My CO or some other high and mighty type would always ask what I had planned when I submitted leave? Who cares if I sit in my house and play video games or if I volunteer at a dog pound, it is my time, I earned it.

 

[ImBillT]

It will be interesting to see who the NM legislators care about more; New Mexicans or Kyle Mcintyre from El Paso, TX.


Another way to look at it, is that (assuming you don't use an outfitter) is that you're now applying for 10% of the tags instead of 6%.
Hard to say what it will do to odds, since we don't know how many people will stop applying if they cant apply in the outfitter pool, where many times they get better odds than residents get.
People that can afford outfitters can still buy landowner tags. This doesn't do away with them.

With the existence of Landowner tags, plus 10% of draw tags, NM will still be giving NR much more opportunity than many western states.

NM residents can currently apply in the outfitter pool. The outfitter pool has nothing to do with non-residents. The only reason that it is mostly non-residents who apply in the outfitter pool is that for the vast majority of tags, the resident pool has better draw odds than the outfitter pool. In the case of hunt codes with better draw odds in the outfitter pool than the resident pool, there are plenty of NM residents applying in the outfitter pool.

I don’t use an outfitter and don’t plant to, but to characterize the outfitter pool as something that is set aside for non-residents is incorrect. It isn’t set aside for non-residents. It’s set aside to help NM outfitters. It also doesn’t hurt all residents, it hurts residents that don’t want to contract with an outfitter.

Non-residents who previously contracted with outfitters will continue to apply in NM. They have plenty of money and don’t mind rolling the dice there. They will also save some money by no longer having to contract with an outfitter for all those years of applications between tags.

 

[MTGomer]

the resident pool has better draw odds than the outfitter pool.

This is false and I posted the 2018-2020 draw odds above that show it. There is no shortage of hunts where the outfitter pool has much better odds, especially for deer and antelope

The majority of New Mexicans are poor and aren’t entering any outfitter pools, nor should they have to even consider it.

It also doesn’t hurt all residents,

Hurts the ones that disagree with the commercialization of their wildlife.

 

[ImBillT]

This is false and I posted the 2018-2020 draw odds above that show it. There is no shortage of hunts where the outfitter pool has much better odds, especially for deer and antelope

The majority of New Mexicans are poor and aren’t entering any outfitter pools, nor should they have to even consider it.




Hurts the ones that disagree with the commercialization of their wildlife.

I can’t find where you posted the draw odds you mention. It’s probably right under my nose, but I don’t see it. 2-3 years ago I compared R, NR, and O draw odds for all of the hunt codes that I was interested in, and R’s had the best draw odds for all of them except one that only had one NR tag and no applicants. The residents had nearly 100% odds on that tag also though.

Of course you don’t bother quoting the entire sentence, which completely changes the meaning of what I said. What I said may still be incorrect under today’s draw odds, but it wasn’t last time I checked the odds, and again THERE IS NOTHING THAT BARS RESIDENTS FROM APPLYING IN THE OUTFITTER POOL. And no, I can’t afford to hire an outfitter. I have difficulty just applying for the tags that I apply for.

Hurts the ones that disagree with the commercialization of wildlife? You literally just said that it hurts your feelings. You have an opinion, and that is counter to it, but in no way does it hurt your draw odds unless you choose not to apply in the outfitter pool. You have AGAIN quoted half a sentence which takes it ENTIRELY out of context. If you would quote the entire sentence, it would be plain that quote means “it doesn’t hurt the draw odds of all NM residents, it only hurts the draw odds of those that do not apply in the outfitter pool”. That sentence has nothing at all to do with whether I think the outfitter pool should or should not exist, it points out that the outfitter pool has nothing to do with residents or non-residents.

I believe I have actually suggested to NMGF that they should eliminate the outfitter pool and bump NR tags to 10%. I doubt that my opinion on it actually mattered. I assumed they probably didn’t even read the e-mail. Now that it may happen, I have mixed feelings based on how drastic it is to go from 16% that are available to non-residents to 10%, even though non-residents currently have the same access to the 10% pool that residents do.

I don’t think it’s right for the government of NM to create a guarantee of a fixed minimum number of customers for NM outfitters by creating the 10% outfitter only pool, but again, it has nothing to do with residents and non-residents.

 

[brownbear932008]

As I said before, I agree with eliminating outfitter set asides. Please stop trying to convince me 10 is more than 16.

Exactly, but some appear to justify it by saying it's 4% more tags in the pool. Yes it is but, it's not as simple as that. It's cutting 6% overall and combining two applicant pools into one. People odds aren't getting better don't be fooled. If you think everyone in the outfitter pool is going to go searching for landowner tags that's simply not going to happen. I personally love NM's set up. It gives you several options to think about or save for. I've only drawn 2 elk tags over the years but it's a great state with a good system in place I feel.
I definitely understand residents wanting 90% like most other states, and the pricing for all involved is not out of control on either side.

 

[Labman]

This piece of proposed legislation ended up right where it belongs-in the trash. A shout out to the 4 senators who killed it, solid decision.

 

[hank4elk]

This piece of proposed legislation ended up right where it belongs-in the trash. A shout out to the 4 senators who killed it, solid decision.

Which ones?

 

[TLowell02]

This piece of proposed legislation ended up right where it belongs-in the trash. A shout out to the 4 senators who killed it, solid decision.

Good to hear. I wonder how NMWF and NMBHA will spin the loss. I assume by blaming outfitters and NR. I, for one, will be ending my BHA membership.

 

[hank4elk]

I found the list of senators.
Tough to vote on 4 bills rolled into one with little backing from anyone.
Still think outfitter welfare should go.

 

[Labman]

As if there weren’t enough reasons to hate politics and politicians we are doing this thing again on Saturday. Dumb.

 

[Labman]

This dumb thing was finally scrapped (again) this morning.

 

[ImBillT]

I’ve felt like getting rid of the outfitter pool would be a good thing. That bill did a lot more than that, and I didn’t have time to research it. The e-mail I received about it was clearly mischaracterizing some things about the three tag pools, and that was enough to give me some reservations about supporting it. If you have to twist the truth about the main thing that I know about the bill to get support, then chances are, the rest of the bill is pretty questionable.

 

[TLowell02]

Does anyone know what happened with the trapping ban on public land bill?

 

[hank4elk]

Does anyone know what happened with the trapping ban on public land bill?

Big push to table that one now.

 

[newtexican]

As a New Mexico resident. I support the 90/10. I see now reason to allocate 10% of the tags that limits opportunities for residents and non residents. If someone’s awarded a tag they will have a choice of hiring a guide/outfitter. Seems like I heard on the jay scott outdoors podcast there was other stuff layered in the bill that I didn’t agree with. If I recall correctly it would limit youth opportunities