What about NM outfitters screwing other nonres.

[danr55]

The insurence policy is what we all need to chip in for , but its not going to be as expensive as you think when we put in the policy that the coverage will only be for real shady accidents. The state does not check out the policies i bet so get a real shady policy that covers the amount required but have a private clause with the insurence company to make it basicly a useless policy on the side. Make it so the insurence guy gets a few hundred buck for writing a polocy that can never really have a claim. (or find an insurence salesaman that likes elk hunting and let him use the outfitter preference for writing it!!)

Schmaltz, That sure smacks of fraud to me. And the fact that you post it here, creates all of the components for a conspiracy charge, if you go through with it. If you don't execute that action, then it's just idle talk.

Be Careful.

 

[FEW]

As far as turning hunting into a rich mans sport I think guys that decide it is easier to look the other way are half the problem. Rich hunters, greedy guides and stupid assed liberal politicians are the other half. May as well throw in poorly managed fish and game departments too.

DS I am wondering what you found so funny about his idea of getting a lawyer? If you have all the answers lets hear them. Hell filing a lawsuit seems to be the best way to accomplish things these days. Look at what USO is doing to AZ. USO has filed a bogus lawsuit and it is looking like they might get what they want. They are claiming that the cap on non res tags is hurting them because they hunt elk and sell the racks and other body parts for money. Everyone knows that is a load and that USO does not want the cap removed so they can draw more often and sell parts of their elk, they want the cap removed so they can bring their fat ass lazy clients here to kill elk. They make their money from guiding, not selling elk racks.

Tom while your idea may allow more hunting opportunities, I think things like that (supporting landowner tags) are exactly what many western hunters want to stay away from. I think landowner tags are BS and I would never buy one. If that was the only way I could hunt I may change my mind but for now we can still hunt public grounds with sanely priced tags ($70 for elk in AZ) and I would like to keep it that way if possible... In Texas I have heard most public land is a joke so if I lived there I would probably be hunting on leases, private property etc..

 

[FEW]

Is there anything illegal about USO lying about the reason behind their lawsuit? I mean they make it sound like they are poor hunters barely surviving by selling parts of animals they kill.

I also think writing to companies that support USO is a very good idea. Believe it or not most companies are concerned with how the customer feels, especially if the customer is pissed at them. Enough letters and enough complaining just may do some damage to USO which I think would be awesome.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 02-17-2003 16:00: Message edited by: FEW ]</font>

 

[danr55]

Unfortunately, if the basis for the action is legal, it doesn't have to be factual. The statue under which the suit was filed is the interstate commerce act. The lawsuit states that by restricting the number of out of state tags available, the AZGF is interfering the USO and thier ability to do commerce in Arizona. The one answer to the whole thing and the thing that would throw a wrench into USO's works is a change in the rules by the AZGF Commission. If it were made illegal to sell parts of game animals, like antlers and hides, then the basis for the lawsuit would be null and void. It would be illegal to do interstate commerce in game animals and as such, not subject to the Interstate Commerce Act.

I believe they are working on a draft resolution right now.

 

[Bear Creek Adventures]

Tom, I think you are on the right track! Your idea sounds like something that can actually be accomplished for a reasonable amount of time and energy. The only difficulty with that plan is actually doing the foot work to find the landowner permits.

DS, thanks for the posts, you are right on.

Buzz, number 1, there are no Outfitter sponsored tags in NM, #2 the only subsidies outfitters in NM receive is from private money, not public money.

It seems this issue is really getting clouded and there have been a few things said that are not true.

First of all, I know many people do not like outfitters and for many there is good reason. However, in regard to this issue, outfitters are the ally not the enemy!

It has been said here that outfitters originally imposed the quota in NM. This is not true. Prior to the legislation that passed about five years ago which imposed the quota, all applicants, both residents and non-residents, were drawn out of the same pool. Sportsman’s associations felt that it was unfair that non-residents were drawing more tags for quality units than residents, so they had their state representative carry a bill for them which said 90% of the tags would go to residents and 10% were to go to non-residents. The outfitters fought this bill vehemently and finally a deal was struck between the two groups which resulted in the current quota system which allows 10% to go to non-residents not required to hire an outfitter, 12% to go to non-residents hiring an outfitter and 78% to residents.

Some comments have been made about the advantage that non-resident hunters have when hiring an outfitter. Here is the deal on that. There is a 2% difference in the number of licenses between non-residents who hire an outfitter and non-residents that have the choice of hiring an outfitter or going on their own!! A 2% difference!!

Another important point to make is that the quota in NM applies only to public elk, deer entry permits, public antelope, javelina, special turkey units and special bear units. The NM quota is not applied to over the counter licenses for deer, bear, turkey, cougar, barbary sheep, ibex, oryx, bighorn sheep and elk and antelope licenses obtained via a private land authorization. This means that all applicants (both residents and non-residents) are drawn out of the same pool for these hunts.

In regard to the legislation introduced to restrict the number of non-resident hunters in NM here are some facts that have not been mentioned. #1 The New Mexico Department of Game and Fish is definitely opposed to this because non-resident hunts account for 60% of their budget. #2 NM outfitters and the NM Council of Outfitters and Guides is opposed to this legislation. #3 The decision in Arizona regarding USO's court action basically gets rid of the states right to impose a cap on non-resident applications. Therefore, in Arizona, non-residents and residents will apply into the same pool for licenses and residents will not have an advantage over non-residents for these licenses. This decision was handed down by the 9th circuit court of appeals which covers many of the western states (not NM).

So, when you consider that the state of NM, the outfitters and non-residents are against this legislation, it seems to me that non-residents don't have much to worry about. Even if the legislation goes through, I suspect that one or all of these entities will take the decision to court and with the decision that was made in the USO case as a precedent, it would not be hard to win. If this were to happen, the entire quota system would be eliminated.

 

[schmalts]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bear Creek

Some comments have been made about the advantage that non-resident hunters have when hiring an outfitter. Here is the deal on that. There is a 2% difference in the number of licenses between non-residents who hire an outfitter and non-residents that have the choice of hiring an outfitter or going on their own!! A 2% difference!!

[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> 2%??? do your math better buddy so, i want to see it in print as to what units these are in, or if its true at all. You dont do math so well, no offence but there is not a 2% difference in the tags guided to non guided its 20%ish!!! there is a difference of 2% between the two compared to the residents but thats not the issue! Last time i checked the difference between 12% and 10% was 20%?? maybe you dont even realize the issue in hand here? Also you seem to think its fair to have the higher percentage go to outfitted hunters and they are the smaller pool of applicants making their chances even higher, what dont you get?. so that 2% turns into lets see, 20% more tags for the outfit guys, do a little figuring for the difference in the amount of applicant of both draws and i bet the 2% turns into more like 50-60% better drawing odds all said and done in most units. I challenge you to put a post where we can see these numbers to look at ALL units Mostly the GILA units. No offense but if i was getting 5000$ for a bull and 2000$ for a cow hunt like you do i would still prefer to see my clients draw from a pool of all nonresidents and then hire me for my hunting skills, not my hunting opportunities.
FEW, THANK YOU FOR SEEING this as a real issue. Yes too many hunters turn thier heads and let the rich get thier way. Rich also being the ranchers who control the legislation who make the laws in NM hunting. They already have the landowner tags and greed makes them want the public land too for thier shop.
I still dont buy the illigal crap either. If everything is done legal, using any loophole you can legal is legal plain and simple. No one says you legally need to charge 3000$ for an outfitted hunt plus tag fees. I have a freind that own an archery shop here and he writes off his hunting trips as a expense every year and everything thinks that shady but hey, his business is hunting and equipment. Loopholes are not illigal. Do you just pay your taxes each year without deducting anything??? lets drop the whole outfitter thing and talk about the lawsuit instead.
A lawsuit is the way to go too in my opinion. NM is infringing on many hunters rights by limiting
them opportunities to harvest game to sell and make antler art because of the outfitter preference.

. Shady as it is , like FEW said USO is getting away with it and what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Of course the suit may need to be modified a bit but it seems like a slam dunk if USO can win. Even more so when a federal court will see that it is happening on federal land

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 02-17-2003 20:27: Message edited by: schmalts ]</font>

 

[Deerslayer]

Yepper....I think Ol' Danr is dead on with the felony charges issue.............I may wanna opt out of this one

.....but on the other hand..........if you trump it up to include sueing a few other states as well....say Nevada and Arizona too!....well that might be worth the risk of going to prison.............plus we do have connections in a few federal institutions...say one in Michigan in particular. If we get busted........maybe we can request a ride up to the UP Bighouse where ol Yoop would treat us special.....

...and another thought.....we may as well have a guy with experience ram-rodding this deal through......and I know of at least one ex-Outfitter needing sonething to do these days............maybe he would take up our cause.

Yep Few.........you and Smaltz are all over this one.........it's just wonder nobody has ever figured this shit out..hell, it's right there in black and white..........maybe black and white stripes(pants and matching top

)

Smaltz....Id love to give you those numbers.....but I ain't real crazy about spoonfeeding folks toward certain hunt areas.
It's easy enough to find if you can operate a keyboard and have half a brain.......good luck in your quest.....REALLY!....cause your damn sure gonna need it!

PS..........Eric............I think you can quit sweating.......my hunch is that you survive this latest brainstorm against the "dreaded outfitters"......

 

[schmalts]

Deerslayer, Sounds like your a little bested myself, since you didnt mention anything about the facts, just added some of your typical outfitterish sounding opinions. Why are you afraid to proove me wrong with the info you say you have about the percentage of applicant with and without outfitter preference? Proove i am a dumbass and show us all

You are right, nevada should be included. but AZ does not have a outfitter preference or landowner tags, at least they care about tradition i guess. Its pretty easy to go on the web and look up stuff in the NM fish and game page but i never seen anything that lists a breakdown of how many applicants per unit use the outfitter preference VS not using it, or are you afraid we will really see how unfair the advantage is? I know when guys feel they get bested they usually resort to sarcasm instead of facts in a debate so its pretty easy to say things like your going to prison,just for finding loopholes in systems and bringing out truths about figures and facts.

Thats fine, believe what you want, its your right. but if you think outfitter preferences are fair your the worst thing hunting tradition has to offer,I am kind of losing what direction your going here i think.
Lets drop the whole sham outfitter startup and talk about facts if you dont want to play with a hardened criminal like me

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 02-19-2003 19:47: Message edited by: schmalts ]</font>

 

[Tom]

Hey Schmalts, There's not a lot of difference in a 12% chance verses a 10% chance, its still really pretty small chances of hunting. 12-10 for two years would be 4%, 4% of 10% is 40% more over two years, over 3 years it would be 60% more than this year's 10%, whew.

6 hunts over 50 years of hunting (12%) versus 5 hunts over 50 years of hunting (10%). That's the expectation with those odds, that's pretty lousy, but that's the real strain on our public hunting.

Note: I saw a landowner cow hunt advertised last year a little north of here, like 100 miles, for $500 with a guaranteed, ie. over the counter, $35 liscense. It could be bow or gun here. That kind of thing could be a backup for meat.

If the law calls for a $500,000 policy, I think you're idea is to get the cheapest legal one you can. I'm not worried about going to jail over that. The 3 year guiding experience there and recommendation is harder, that makes it more like a real outfitter, to be an outfitter in NM.

 

[schmalts]

Yea tom i found a lot of info the last few days, checking into some things. Found the numbers of nonguided to guided applicant numbers too.

 

[FEW]

I thought the 10/12% were the percentage of tags going to non res. Not the odds of being drawn. Was I wrong on that? I would think less people put in for the outfitters pool for obvious reasons. I know several people that hunt NM and do not know anyone that uses a guide. So if more tags are going to people that hire outfitters, and less people are in that pool it would give the lazy bastards and advantage in the draw.

 

[rhnm]

I would like to see the outfitters left out of the draw. Let the non-resident hunters draw for the 22% of the tags.
Outfitters are buying up most of the landowner tags and selling them to out of staters. I bet that close to 90% of landowner bull tags go to non-resident hunters.
Since New Mexico started issuing landowner tags and outfitter preference the access to some great public lands has been restricted or blocked. I have hunted ranches before with unrestricted access by asking for permission before the hunt. After they get involved with an outfitter up go the private property signs. Some of these outfitters will post not only the private but also state and federal lands as well.
The ranchers and outfitters are well represented at every game commision meeting. Time for the rest of us to get involved.

 

[schmalts]

Few, there is also a twist to this. If you look at the numbers of sucsessfull applicant between guided and nonguided they are usually close percentages, and for a reason. Yes the better units of couse the guided will draw more tags because they have a 20% more allocation than unguided. Heres the twist... The outfitters keep tabs on the units then also have their applicants apply in the unguided pool too if the numbers look better there, score some of those tags, and then guide them anyway, So they are in a position to play a numbers game like we cant.

Do you know what i am getting at? Thats why this outfitter preference is bull

 

[Oak]

You can send in two different apps in NM? In CO you have one application, period.

Oak

 

[schmalts]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Colorado Oak:
You can send in two different apps in NM? In CO you have one application, period.

Oak<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No Oak, but if you are going unguided you can only put in the 10% pool. See when you fill out your app if you check the box that says you will go outfitted you automaticly get drawn from a seperate allotment of tags(12%)
If you are going guided you can be put into a pool with 12% of tags. If you are going unguided you can also get put in by you or your outfitter into the unguided pool if the numbers give you better odds (playing the numbers). Its a double standard. The outfitters actually fill up the 12% pool and then when the numbers look good they will also put in for the unguided pool too. That way they can get as many of thier hunters tags. Tag drawing services like USO study these numbers well and thats why you will never see it look like the number of unguided apps are higher than guided because some of the guided hunters are submitted under out share too. That way there is really a lot mote tags than advertised going to outfitted hunters than you think. Not saying a guy should not be able to change his mind and get a guide after he draws but this still screws the guys who wont get a guid.
Hope this helps??? if not let me know and i will try again.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 02-20-2003 14:59: Message edited by: schmalts ]</font>

 

[Deerslayer]

hahahha....so you finally found the numbers, huh Smaltz?.......good for you. Yeah, I was putting up a "smokescreen" because I wouldn't spoonfeed ya......yeah right!

Tough find since they were right there on the web site the whole time. Took all of about a minute and a half to print the whole damn thing out so you can read it. It's hard to read on their web page, but clear as day once downloaded.....but a guy does have to expend just a little effort to get it.....

Now that you have it, quit whining for a minute and take a hard look at the percentages on non-res guided and nonres unguided. You'll see you have nothing to whine about. Many units actually have better odds for unguided. Your worrying way too much over the small shit instead of reading the numbers. No wonder you can't draw the damn tag. I'll have a New Mexico tag this year, and I won't be sueing anybody nor will I be starting any new Outfitting ventures to get it. Will I tell you where and how.......NOPE!....ain't gonna happen. All I'll say is I'm hunting south of Denver. But by the small chance I don't draw.....I have a couple of back-up plans that will have me on hunts just about as good. You see, it's really less about whining and more about planning. So while your whining about USO this fall.....I'll be lacerating the heart and lungs of a bruiser bull with my buddy Buzzy. The toughest problem we will have to deal with is wading through all the 300+ bulls to get to the one we're after....

It's really pretty simple. You have basically two groups .......the whiners who would rather find excuses as to why they are denied......and the planners who play the sytem to the best of their ability and make the best out of the hand they are dealt....and hopefully they can get a little help along the way. I won't deny I have had help at times......but I have helped just as many myself. And I can honestly say I have worked my ass off for everything I have gotten......with little whining about being treated like a "stepchild" in the process.

....so what's it gonna be?.......you still want the name of that good hunter/lawyer?

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 02-20-2003 17:28: Message edited by: Deerslayer ]</font>

 

[schmalts]

Hell ya give me any name DS. Your too thickheaded to realise why the numbers are close in any of the good units. They are played that way. As soon as any unit gets submitted with enough Outfitter numbers they start submiting in the nonguided pile too. I already explained why but maybe you dont get it because you dont want to admit i am correct. But the fact it burns you so much reall shows me your pissed i am right. Maybe you should not visit this topic if it hits to hard to the truth for ya. You go get your landowner tag and feed your fat rich landowner and outfitters, i will play the system and fight for equal hunting rights with the poor. Someday when hunting is reduces to what Great Briton has where only the rich hunt i hope you dont have kids that will look at your hunting pictures and wonder why they cant do the same things you did when they are that age. Take a look at Europe and see the future buddy, unless we change it.

 

[BuzzH]

Schmalts, your pissing in the wind.

I personally think its damn generous of NM to give 10 percent to the po' white trash NR hunters. Thats right in line with just about all the western states.

The outfitters successfully lobbied and got a little bigger bite.

I think what you want is a tag every year to hunt quality animals in NM, you may as well get over the fact it wont ever happen.

Have fun gathering the cabbage to push your lawsuit. By the time you pay for a lawsuit, you could have hunted marco pollo sheep.

 

[Deerslayer]

Smaltz......I won't be dealing with no pesky landowners...now if you want to vent your rage somewhere.....there's you a just target...not the outfitters. The outfitters in New Mexico will battle for you even though you are here slamming them.......ya see, they hope you do draw. Then hope you realize you are in over your head and go to them for help either guiding or a drop camp.
Outfitters make money when non-res draw. They get revenue from the unguided pool as well......both from those that decide lasy minute to be guided, and also those that would like to have a drop camp set or elk hauled out. You can try to paint them the enemy all you want.....but you need to lay off the sauce and get a grip on reality for a second and realize which side your bread is buttered on.

And as far as me being upset or this thread getting to me.......hahhahaha, I haven't laughed so hard in a while. I am taking this in humor, because I honestly think you are joking....just pulling shit on us for kicks.......because no one could really be that blinded to the numbers and the way things work.

....and I think there are some damn fine lawyers around Encampment, Wyoming....word on the street is a many a lawsuit originated there for the damdest of reasons!

 

[Deerslayer]

Good point Buzz.......we ARE talking about 22% nonres allocation in a high quality state....dems preety darn good apples as compared.....