Wonder how well that went over around the office for Cal since I’m fairly confident he has multiple coworkers that have been purchasing landowner tagsCal's Week in Review discussed this a bit at the 11:00 mark here:
Cal's Week In Review | MeatEater Podcasts
Join Ryan “Cal” Callaghan each week for his unique brand of outdoor news designed for folks that need to know what’s going on and those who want to pretend they do. Part of The MeatEater Podcast Network.www.themeateater.com
As well as wrote an article about it:
Has New Mexico ‘Privatized’ Its Elk Herd?
The New Mexico Wildlife Federation and the New Mexico Chapter of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers (BHA) published a bombshell report last week slamming the state’s Department of Game and Fish for “privatizing elk hunting opportunities.” The conservation and hunting groups claim that the state is...
Take Back Your Elk
- Thread starter Oak
- Start date
Nameless Range
Well-known member
Who knows. I have appreciated Cal's take on a lot of the Montana-related elk issues, but have been kind of surprised in Meateater's lack of comment, showing up at the capital, testimony against bills (publicly anyway). Cal seems like a genuinely good dude.
For those diving in, the article is a transcript of what Cal said on the podcast.Cal's Week in Review discussed this a bit at the 11:00 mark here:
Cal's Week In Review | MeatEater Podcasts
Join Ryan “Cal” Callaghan each week for his unique brand of outdoor news designed for folks that need to know what’s going on and those who want to pretend they do. Part of The MeatEater Podcast Network.
As well as wrote an article about it:
Has New Mexico ‘Privatized’ Its Elk Herd?
The New Mexico Wildlife Federation and the New Mexico Chapter of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers (BHA) published a bombshell report last week slamming the state’s Department of Game and Fish for “privatizing elk hunting opportunities.” The conservation and hunting groups claim that the state is...
Can't imagine why anyone would get upset. Cal just laid out the details of the report, and didn't take a position one way or another. One would need pretty tender feelings to feel threatened by this piece. I am, however, offended by this comment about Colorado: "...at least one other Western state is content with issuing a comparable percentage of its elk licenses to nonresidents."
The intended outcome is to make elk hunting in New Mexico equal opportunity for people of all income levels instead of the domain of wealthy hunters that can afford to buy their way around the draw through private landowner tags and to better draw odds through the outfitter set aside. What it will solve is stopping New Mexico from continuing to be the state that has followed the European model instead of North American Model.
Yea, as those meateater boys have become more wealthy and able to buy private hunting they sure have a lowered willingness to stick up for public hunting.
Yes, we stuck to elk in this report. But you are correct. The privatization situation is as bad or worse for pronghorn and bad for mule deer too.
I wouldn’t really say direct pushback that I have been aware of. But I’m sure they, as everyone else that benefits financially from New Mexico’s privatization of the public’s wildlife are working the levers in the background. And unfortunately because the magnitude of privatization is so great, that’s a lot of people and power pulling levers. This is very much an upstream swim for us in New Mexico to put the public back in hunting. It took 50 years to get to the private shit show that is New Mexico. We don’t expect to get much very fast. But we are undaunted. We will never quit trying.
You should keep in mind that it is the same thing that we in New Mexico are fighting so hard about, privatization, that created the crappy 6% unguided nonresident quota. We are on unguided nonresidents side on this. Privatization hurts you (unguided nonresidents) even worse than it hurts his. Your 6% draw set aside is only 3.6% of total elk tags because of EPLUS. We want to increase unguided nonresidents share of elk hunting nearly (if I’m honest) as much as we want to increase the public resident share.
It really is that simple. Every other western state except New Mexico has managed to solve financial and management issues without wholesale privatization that sees wealthy hunters being able to jump ahead of everyone else to be able to hunt. That’s all privatization is in New Mexico. It is a willful transfer of hunting opportunity to the wealthy from the average. That is its purpose and achievement. It is not fir financial or management reasons. If NM feels it needs to sell 35% or 40% nonresident elk tags (it doesn’t as proven by other states) then it could set the draw quota at 35% to 40% nonresident and it would be average hunters and not rich hunters drawing the tags.
You should keep in mind that it is the same thing that we in New Mexico are fighting so hard about, privatization, that created the crappy 6% unguided nonresident quota. We are on unguided nonresidents side on this. Privatization hurts you (unguided nonresidents) even worse than it hurts us. Your 6% draw set aside is only 3.6% of total elk tags because of EPLUS. We want to increase unguided nonresidents share of elk hunting nearly (if I’m honest) as much as we want to increase the public resident share.
BTW-I was the driving force in getting rid of the round up tags. Please be aware that in most states the nonresident share of tags are not guaranteed. They are “up to” limits. New Mexico’s nonresident quotas are guaranteed. On top of this statutory measure our game commission added the round up rule which manufactured additional tags out of thin air and over 90% of the additional round up tags were awarded to nonresidents and almost every time they were issued only resident hunters were below quota when the round up tag is included in the total issued for the hunt code. This when only the resident quota share of tags included the word “minimum”. As I pointed out, and the game commission agreed, they were breaking the law by issuing less than 84% of tags to residents when they issued round up tags.
Last edited:
I was disappointed that Cal simply picked up on NMDGFs talking point on Colorado with out challenging the assumption. In Colorado every Coloradan can hunt elk, maybe several elk, over the counter every year if they do not draw. New Mexico is a draw or starve state. The only over the counter public species is barbary in the non-core area. Of course, being that it is New Mexico there are ample private over the counter opportunities for elk and pronghorn. But no public otc big game.For those diving in, the article is a transcript of what Cal said on the podcast.
Can't imagine why anyone would get upset. Cal just laid out the details of the report, and didn't take a position one way or another. One would need pretty tender feelings to feel threatened by this piece. I am, however, offended by this comment about Colorado: "...at least one other Western state is content with issuing a comparable percentage of its elk licenses to nonresidents."
ShootsManyBullets
Well-known member
@abqbw - Why don't you hit up the big guy to do a hunt talk podcast? Maybe a Meat Eater too? Based on the last few meat eaters I've listened to they need some help with content that might actually ruffle some feathers.
I like what you're doing BTW
I like what you're doing BTW
He's always welcome on the Hunt Talk podcast. @abqbw does more for New Mexico wildlife and other conservation causes than most anyone I know. I think we could have a great discussion and hopefully it would help him as he continue his tireless work towards improving things in New Mexico.
ShootsManyBullets
Well-known member
He seems like a person you'd have some lively discussion with that a lot of us would like to hear.
Check the numbers. When I drew in NM a few years ago, they issued about 200 tags in the unit through the drawing process. With the drawing setup, (with the resident/non-resident/outfitter pool) only like 8 of those tags went to NR. I thought it was great - I was one of the 8 NR people that drew the tag and I was in for a great hunt. Until I got there and it wasn't. I dug into it a little bit more after I got back and found out the state of NM issued something like over 1000 landowner tags for that unit. So, 200+1000=1200 tags! Add in the hunters from the second time period arriving early to scout the unit, and the "posse" approach used by some, and that particular unit was more crowded that most of the OTC units I hunted over the previous decade!!!! (Yes, I shot a really nice bull, but that is beside the point.) Go into the hunt thinking "wow, this is going to be great" - get there and think "wow, this is crowded!"
I appreciate the kind words. But really if you are a New Mexican hunter and care just a little bit about the future of public hunting it’s not that big of a stretch if you are not in a coma to advocate for less privatization here.
Honestly, I don’t think the meateater crew is very interested in this subject anymore. It’s speaks to one of the biggest issues we face in New Mexico. Privatization is systemic and so many people and orgs in the bizness of hunting benefit. We have a hard time getting much of a forum. For instance this summer when we were trying to get a few more resident bighorn tags at the expense of outfitter set aside tags (not unguided nonresident which would have not been impacted -I designed our proposal that way) Wild Sheep Foundation and Boone and Crocket sent a letter to our game commission with the lie that if successful it would impair bighorn conservation. What they, and NM wild sheep foundation and the New Mexico Council of Outfitters and Guides said throughout the process was that if we were successful that nonresident auction tag buyers and raffle ticket buyers would be so offended by a reduction of nonresident outfitter draw tags that they would stop buying. Please. People so rich that can pay a couple of hundred thousand bucks for a bighorn tag care about draw hunters so much that they are going to protest and stop buying their hunts. But it worked. WSF kicked our ass with lies. But we did sort of get what we were really after (which we stated all along). The game commission passed the bighorn rule as only a two year rule. This will hopefully get our legislature to visit the quota law and add a special provision for bighorn like every other state. This is what we wanted. 84/10/6 by hunt code leaves zero nonresident or outfitted bighorn tags. This is why our commission lumps the bighorn ram hunt codes together. We just wanted our commission to act in a way that incentivizes our legislature to re-write the quota law to accommodate nonresident bighorn tags. Maybe the two year only bighorn rule will be enough incentive. I am beyond disgusted with WSF, Boone and Crockett and NM WSF for lying about the issue and spreading false info to protect the outfitter set aside. At almost the same time WY reduced the nonresident bighorn quota from 25% to 10%. Not a peep out of WSF. But here in New Mexico they lobbied very hard and mostly successfully over the resident and nonresident split. Something as far as I can tell they have never done anywhere but New Mexico. The problem is that WSF has so much influence over sheep that they sucked the air out of the room. What is particularly galling is that WSF has built its wealth and influence by laundering state bighorn enhancement tags. They make a ton of money doing it. 10% of the NM auction and 20% of the NM raffle revenue goes to WSF and NMWSF respectively. The bargain made with the public for auction and raffle tags is that by pulling those tags out of the public domain they public will benefit because it will create more animals to hunt. But that has evolved to where WSF takes that money and power they made on our sheep and leverages it to work against the public. The tail is wagging the dog. How do we even begin to combat that?
But as a result I will boycott anything that WSF touches and I encourage every other hunter that believes in the NA model and public hunting to do the same. You will never see me at the sheep show again. And I intend to relenquish my WSF Summit Life membership over their behavior in New Mexico.
A few years ago the president of NM WSF told me that he was going to put me on the board of NMWSF because of all my work for bighorn conservation in NM. But then he reneged. He said that my advocacy against the outfitter set aside in NM upset the NM outfitter that is on the NMWSF board. That I would have to tone it down about outfitters in NM to be on their board. Lol. Like that’s ever gonna happen!
Thank you @bigfin. I’ll reach out. I would like the opportunity to come on the podcast and talk about our efforts to make hunting in New Mexico more public and less private and why we think it is important for New Mexico and beyond.
@abqbw - check your text messages.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
My opinions of a lot of organizations have changed, and not for the better in recent years. It’s so obvious that organizations can become captured by money, or those with it.
I firmly believe that with the vast majority of conservation orgs, if they are not fighting for the ability of the average American, then they are just playing a short game that in the long run will destroy the availability of the virtuousness of hunting.
Sure, there’s self interest in my position, as well as a hopeful interest for those who will come after me, but whether or not one manages to “put more (insert animal here) on the mountain”, if the proportional difference between those who will pay the big bucks and their access to those animals versus those who rely on equal opportunity in the drawing process, or what’s left of it, continues to increase, and those groups are actually exacerbating the increase, then the utility of those orgs becomes increasingly meaningless to most folks. I know that doesn’t speak to whether or not they’ll continue to get donors and make lots of money at their banquets.
No organization is perfect, but it seems so damn few fight for the little guy. The ones that do get disproportionately chit on. And by little guy, I mean 90% of us.
Last edited:
