Proposal to eliminate non-resident sheep tags in New Mexico

[LopeHunter]

Just come to California. LOL! We put NR in the same draw pool as residents, at least for deer anyway. So there’s no split for R/NR. Good thing not many want to come and hunt here.

Washington State offers same set of tags to R and NR with no caps. Costs lots more to apply as a NR but if you find the money then are welcome to every tag as a NR if Lady Luck is your buddy. Sheep, moose, goat, elk and deer. No wilderness guide crap. No one crying about “our” tags or who pays taxes or donates time. No cap on NR tags or “up to” wink and nod. No limitation on units can apply for each year. No tag give away to outfitters. No tag giveaway to slush fund conventions. Just need a fat wallet and if want to chase the lottery tags then have to set foot inside Washington to purchase.

 

[abqbw]

Folks it is clear that wildlife is the sole property of residents and non-residents should forget that non-resident opportunities exist (despite the hundreds of YouTube vids on western multi state draw strategies). Non-resident hunters provide a completely insignificant contribution to wildlife conservation, so stop even trying, you have done nothing to improve or contribute to maintaining or improving our herds. B&C and WSF need to butt out of NM state affairs, with all your fancy non-resident support.

Did I capture the general consensus pretty well? Sad state of affairs that some resident hunters have become so adamant about increasing their piece of the pie, to the point where no one else even has an opportunity.

And if the resident hunters were so concerned about improving their odds .005% then why don’t they just do away with the outfitter draw? I assume most of those tags go to NR anyways?

We try to get rid of the outfitter draw every legislative session. Not necessarily the nonresident tags of the outfitter set aside. We in NM want the entire nonresident portion of tags to be open to every nonresident, not 62.5% (10/16) of tags available to nonresidents able and willing to pay a private individual (an outfitter). We hate the outfitter draw set aside as much as nonresidents. But so far our pleadings to our legislature fall on deaf ears.

 

[abqbw]

If I may, I would like to clear up some misconceptions about what is going on with respect to resident and nonresident allocation of bighorn tags in New Mexico. I am a resident of New Mexico and have been central to the effort to change how bighorn tags are allocated here. I have drawn bighorn tags as a nonresident in two states (AZ and MT) with 10% nonresident quotas.

I want to make it perfectly clear that no one, me included, in New Mexico is trying to eliminate nonresident bighorn tags.

Here is the background on how we have arrived at today. Bighorn hunt code lumping was enacted by the NM Game Commission during 2014. Due to the so called federal Terk injunction from 1977 to 2014 there was no resident/nonresident quota for bighorn sheep, Ibex, or oryx in NM. During 2014 the injunction was vacated and the draw quota became immediately applicable to bighorn, Ibex, and Oryx. But the quota statute was written when there was no quota for these species. As such the statute did not contemplate allocating nonresidents tags when there is such the small number of bighorn tags per hunt code. Under the statute there must be at least 7 tags in a hunt code for there to be an outfitter tag and 13 tags for there to be both an outfitter and an unguided nonresident tag. All ram tags by statute would have to be awarded to resident applicants. During 2014 we argued that this is an unfortunate quirk but the commission should follow the statute and award all bighorn tags to residents until the legislature can correct the statute during the 2015 session. Part of our argument was that federal law changed in 2005 and all the commission had to do is file a motion at any time after that to vacate Terk to establish a bighorn draw quota. And that by sitting on its hands for 8 years before filing the motion the commission had unnecessarily awarded an extra 49 NM bighorn permits to nonresident hunters. Between 2006 and 2013 nonresidents drew between 35% and 69% of all NM bighorn tags. Nonresidents drew 76% of NM desert bighorn permits over this period. Residents drew a majority of the bighorn tags during only two of those 8 years. We reasoned what would really be the harm if the commission waited for the legislature to act thusly giving residents a handful of these 49 tags back over a year or two? But no. Since it was outfitters and nonresidents that might lose a few tags it was an emergency in the minds of our commission and the commission and department acted immediately. First in 2014 by violating statute and awarding only 75% of bighorn permits to residents and 25% to outfitters in both the latir and wheeler bighorn units. And then shortly after concocting the Mickey Mouse practice that exists today of lumping bighorn into 4 hunt codes by category (rocky ram, desert ram, rocky ewe any weapon, and rocky ewe bow only). This is something that had never been done before or since. And it was done exclusively to benefit nonresident applicants.

We (me and the NM Wildlife Federation) kicked a hornets nest this year with NM Council of Outfitters and Guides, NM Wild Sheep, and the Wild Sheep Foundation over bighorn tag allocation. There has been a steam of false information by these groups over our efforts. I can understand NMCOG fighting us on this and spitting out false information to do it. The are the nonresident lobby. It’s what the do and their mission. But as a Summit Life Member of WSF I’m beyond disappointed in NMWSF and WSF (and even Boone and Crockett) for weighing in on this issue at all. This issue has nothing to do with bighorn conservation in New Mexico. WSF, NMWSF, and NMCOG has been spreading two primary tale tales (lies). First is that we want to eliminate nonresident bighorn tags in NM. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have been very clear and consistent on the public record and otherwise that we are strongly in favor of nonresident bighorn tags in New Mexico. We have made it very clear that we simply want the legislature to modify the quota statute like all other sheep states with special language that rationally allocates nonresident bighorn tags from the statewide pool of tags. In contrast to the Mickey Mouse administrative (commission) practice of bighorn hunt code lumping. The commission rule removes any incentive for the legislature to act and modify the quota law.
To accomplish this we have made several compromise proposals that are carefully crafted to maintain nonresident (including outfitted) bighorn tags until the legislature acts but will motivate all sides to get the issue resolved in the proper forum, the legislature. My first proposal was partial lumping. 13 tags from each category (Rocky ram, desert ram, rocky any weapon ewe, and rocky bow only ewe) would remain lumped. This would generate one tag from each category for both unguided nonresidents and outfitted. The remainder of tags would go back into traditional hunt codes which would by statute be resident only (at least for rams). This proposal would not change the one rocky ram and the one desert ram tag that unguided nonresidents currently receive. It would reduce outfitted Rocky plus desert tags from a total of 5 to a total of 2. NMCOG and NMWSF at a “compromise” meeting at Game and Fish rejected this proposal. So NMWF and I offered up two more compromises that they also rejected. We offered to de-lump only ewe and youth hunts and leave ram hunts fully lumped. And finally offered to sunset lumping after the 2023 draw so the legislature would have time to correct the quota statute during its Jan 2023 long session in time for the 2024 draw. We attempted in good faith to get something, anything. But were rebuffed.

Second, NMCOG, NMWSF, and WSF have been making the inherently false statement that if nonresident draw tag allocation changes in NM it would impact bighorn conservation in that it would reduce bighorn enhancement tag (auction and raffle) revenue. I charted auction and raffle revenue vs nonresident bighorn draw rates. Both auction and raffle revenue have soared since nonresident draw rates dropped from over 50% prior to quota in 2014 to about 14% since the quota was implemented. I provided the chart to NMWSF but they have continued to spin the narrative that nonresident bighorn revenue (over 99% that goes to bighorns is enhancement) will be reduced by changes in draw allocation. $745,000 was raised specifically for bighorns during the last auctions (2022) and Raffles (2021). Contrast that with the about $22,200 of nonresident license fees that goes into the game protection fund that funds all species and most department programs. A small fraction of the license fee money flows to bighorns specifically. Obviously if the draw allocations were to change it would have no impact on NM Bighorn conservation funding.

Tomorrow there is a NM game commission meeting and they will decide to either accept one of our compromises to the bighorn rule, eliminate lumping and make all bighorn tags resident only, or keep the status quo that the cabal is demanding. I expect to lose. But that’s ok. I think we shined enough light on the issue that the legislature will open the quota law for modification next January. And that is why NMCOG and NMWSF have fought so hard on this issue. They are deathly afraid of legislative review of the quota law. And NMCOG should be considering how unpopular the outfitter set draw set aside is among both residents and nonresidents. But NMWSFs strident support of the outfitters on this issue is pretty gross. This issue has nothing to do with sheep conservation. WSF and NMWSF have retained just short of a million dollars from their cuts of the auction and raffle sales. One would think that would be enough to keep them happy. The kicker is that the rules for the bids to do the raffle and auction sales are written in a way that it is all but impossible for any org except WSF and NMWSF to win the bids. But that is an issue for another day…

 

[abqbw]

Washington State offers same set of tags to R and NR with no caps. Costs lots more to apply as a NR but if you find the money then are welcome to every tag as a NR if Lady Luck is your buddy. Sheep, moose, goat, elk and deer. No wilderness guide crap. No one crying about “our” tags or who pays taxes or donates time. No cap on NR tags or “up to” wink and nod. No limitation on units can apply for each year. No tag give away to outfitters. No tag giveaway to slush fund conventions. Just need a fat wallet and if want to chase the lottery tags then have to set foot inside Washington to purchase.

It is true. Washington is a real outlier on this.

 

[brocksw]

Kinda weird to hear resident hunters of a state complain about the tags available to the NR's while saying "Stay out of our Business, it's our wildlife" or "Grow your own damn sheep", while simultaneously complaining that too many people are moving to their "insert western state" becoming residents and putting too much pressure on the resource.

 

[BenInMT]

I pray they are successful in this effort. I am not a resident of that state nor am I entitled to travel thousands of miles to murder their wildlife. Let the stakeholders decide what’s best for them.

 

[BlazerBeam]

Kinda weird to hear resident hunters of a state complain about the tags available to the NR's while saying "Stay out of our Business, it's our wildlife" or "Grow your own damn sheep", while simultaneously complaining that too many people are moving to their "insert western state" becoming residents and putting too much pressure on the resource.

There is no difference to me between the NR who feels like their opinion matters in my state and the NR who suffers from FOMO and moves to my state to become a resident. They're both a pain in the ass.

 

[brocksw]

There is no difference to me between the NR who feels like their opinion matters in my state and the NR who suffers from FOMO and moves to my state to become a resident. They're both a pain in the ass.

But there is an actual measurable difference for many of the western states. The NR has to play the points game and only gets tags out of a 10% (or whatever the NR allocation is for a given state) pool. It's extremely controlled.

For the guy who moves to that state, in many cases he now get's a tag or multiple tags every year. Now think about that when people are moving to places like MT in droves. I know several people who have moved to MT in the last 12-18 months, just for the hunting opportunity. Now they get more MT tags than they ever did as a NR, they now hunt more species, they now get multiple tags of the same species (where they didn't before) and are spending more time in the field. Meanwhile, I hear MT residents complaining about how they can't draw their same special permit elk tag every year like they used to.

 

[BlazerBeam]

I know several people who have moved to MT in the last 12-18 months, just for the hunting opportunity.

PM me their addresses. I would like to personally escort them out of the state and strongly encourage them to enjoy their fantasy on youtube, rather than try and make it a reality by moving here. I've got to hand it to them though, it takes some decent sized balls to move to a place where 90 percent of the people don't want you there.

 

[jlmatthew]

PM me their addresses. I would like to personally escort them out of the state and strongly encourage them to enjoy their fantasy on youtube, rather than try and make it a reality by moving here. I've got to hand it to them though, it takes some decent sized balls to move to a place where 90 percent of the people don't want you there.

Americans cant move to where they want in America? Interesting.

I too am guilty of my fantasy that everyone and their offspring that wasn't in the West during the 1970 census (when I was born) would leave, but unless you are 100% pure blood of the local Indian tribe, you sound like an idiot with your statement

 

[BlazerBeam]

Americans cant move to where they want in America? Interesting.

I too am guilty of my fantasy that everyone and their offspring that wasn't in the West during the 1970 census (when I was born) would leave, but unless you are 100% pure blood of the local Indian tribe, you sound like an idiot with your statement

Which I am 100% native according to my tribal enrollment...... but probably not pure blood though because I'm sure somewhere along the line some east coaster stuck his Johnson somewhere it didn't belong

 

[jlmatthew]

Which I am 100% native according to my tribal enrollment...... but probably not pure blood though because I'm sure somewhere along the line some east coaster stuck his Johnson somewhere it didn't belong

Well then good luck getting 90+% of Montana's population to leave.

 

[np307]

Universal human conditions:

"This younger generation is worthless"

"All of these people moving to my state have ruined it"

 

[dmandoes]

Is it true? 97% of the sheep program in NM is funded by nonresident. Epic podcast.

 

[3855WIN]

Is it true? 97% of the sheep program in NM is funded by nonresident. Epic podcast.

Just listened to a good bit of that podcast at the gym. Wow.

 

[BlazerBeam]

Universal human conditions:

"This younger generation is worthless"

"All of these people moving to my state have ruined it"

haha, convince me those things aren't true...

 

[WoodMoose]

I pray they are successful in this effort. I am not a resident of that state nor am I entitled to travel thousands of miles to murder their wildlife. Let the stakeholders decide what’s best for them.

Murder?

 

[bayoublaster7527]

If I may, I would like to clear up some misconceptions about what is going on with respect to resident and nonresident allocation of bighorn tags in New Mexico. I am a resident of New Mexico and have been central to the effort to change how bighorn tags are allocated here. I have drawn bighorn tags as a nonresident in two states (AZ and MT) with 10% nonresident quotas.

I want to make it perfectly clear that no one, me included, in New Mexico is trying to eliminate nonresident bighorn tags.

Here is the background on how we have arrived at today. Bighorn hunt code lumping was enacted by the NM Game Commission during 2014. Due to the so called federal Terk injunction from 1977 to 2014 there was no resident/nonresident quota for bighorn sheep, Ibex, or oryx in NM. During 2014 the injunction was vacated and the draw quota became immediately applicable to bighorn, Ibex, and Oryx. But the quota statute was written when there was no quota for these species. As such the statute did not contemplate allocating nonresidents tags when there is such the small number of bighorn tags per hunt code. Under the statute there must be at least 7 tags in a hunt code for there to be an outfitter tag and 13 tags for there to be both an outfitter and an unguided nonresident tag. All ram tags by statute would have to be awarded to resident applicants. During 2014 we argued that this is an unfortunate quirk but the commission should follow the statute and award all bighorn tags to residents until the legislature can correct the statute during the 2015 session. Part of our argument was that federal law changed in 2005 and all the commission had to do is file a motion at any time after that to vacate Terk to establish a bighorn draw quota. And that by sitting on its hands for 8 years before filing the motion the commission had unnecessarily awarded an extra 49 NM bighorn permits to nonresident hunters. Between 2006 and 2013 nonresidents drew between 35% and 69% of all NM bighorn tags. Nonresidents drew 76% of NM desert bighorn permits over this period. Residents drew a majority of the bighorn tags during only two of those 8 years. We reasoned what would really be the harm if the commission waited for the legislature to act thusly giving residents a handful of these 49 tags back over a year or two? But no. Since it was outfitters and nonresidents that might lose a few tags it was an emergency in the minds of our commission and the commission and department acted immediately. First in 2014 by violating statute and awarding only 75% of bighorn permits to residents and 25% to outfitters in both the latir and wheeler bighorn units. And then shortly after concocting the Mickey Mouse practice that exists today of lumping bighorn into 4 hunt codes by category (rocky ram, desert ram, rocky ewe any weapon, and rocky ewe bow only). This is something that had never been done before or since. And it was done exclusively to benefit nonresident applicants.

We (me and the NM Wildlife Federation) kicked a hornets nest this year with NM Council of Outfitters and Guides, NM Wild Sheep, and the Wild Sheep Foundation over bighorn tag allocation. There has been a steam of false information by these groups over our efforts. I can understand NMCOG fighting us on this and spitting out false information to do it. The are the nonresident lobby. It’s what the do and their mission. But as a Summit Life Member of WSF I’m beyond disappointed in NMWSF and WSF (and even Boone and Crockett) for weighing in on this issue at all. This issue has nothing to do with bighorn conservation in New Mexico. WSF, NMWSF, and NMCOG has been spreading two primary tale tales (lies). First is that we want to eliminate nonresident bighorn tags in NM. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have been very clear and consistent on the public record and otherwise that we are strongly in favor of nonresident bighorn tags in New Mexico. We have made it very clear that we simply want the legislature to modify the quota statute like all other sheep states with special language that rationally allocates nonresident bighorn tags from the statewide pool of tags. In contrast to the Mickey Mouse administrative (commission) practice of bighorn hunt code lumping. The commission rule removes any incentive for the legislature to act and modify the quota law.
To accomplish this we have made several compromise proposals that are carefully crafted to maintain nonresident (including outfitted) bighorn tags until the legislature acts but will motivate all sides to get the issue resolved in the proper forum, the legislature. My first proposal was partial lumping. 13 tags from each category (Rocky ram, desert ram, rocky any weapon ewe, and rocky bow only ewe) would remain lumped. This would generate one tag from each category for both unguided nonresidents and outfitted. The remainder of tags would go back into traditional hunt codes which would by statute be resident only (at least for rams). This proposal would not change the one rocky ram and the one desert ram tag that unguided nonresidents currently receive. It would reduce outfitted Rocky plus desert tags from a total of 5 to a total of 2. NMCOG and NMWSF at a “compromise” meeting at Game and Fish rejected this proposal. So NMWF and I offered up two more compromises that they also rejected. We offered to de-lump only ewe and youth hunts and leave ram hunts fully lumped. And finally offered to sunset lumping after the 2023 draw so the legislature would have time to correct the quota statute during its Jan 2023 long session in time for the 2024 draw. We attempted in good faith to get something, anything. But were rebuffed.

Second, NMCOG, NMWSF, and WSF have been making the inherently false statement that if nonresident draw tag allocation changes in NM it would impact bighorn conservation in that it would reduce bighorn enhancement tag (auction and raffle) revenue. I charted auction and raffle revenue vs nonresident bighorn draw rates. Both auction and raffle revenue have soared since nonresident draw rates dropped from over 50% prior to quota in 2014 to about 14% since the quota was implemented. I provided the chart to NMWSF but they have continued to spin the narrative that nonresident bighorn revenue (over 99% that goes to bighorns is enhancement) will be reduced by changes in draw allocation. $745,000 was raised specifically for bighorns during the last auctions (2022) and Raffles (2021). Contrast that with the about $22,200 of nonresident license fees that goes into the game protection fund that funds all species and most department programs. A small fraction of the license fee money flows to bighorns specifically. Obviously if the draw allocations were to change it would have no impact on NM Bighorn conservation funding.

Tomorrow there is a NM game commission meeting and they will decide to either accept one of our compromises to the bighorn rule, eliminate lumping and make all bighorn tags resident only, or keep the status quo that the cabal is demanding. I expect to lose. But that’s ok. I think we shined enough light on the issue that the legislature will open the quota law for modification next January. And that is why NMCOG and NMWSF have fought so hard on this issue. They are deathly afraid of legislative review of the quota law. And NMCOG should be considering how unpopular the outfitter set draw set aside is among both residents and nonresidents. But NMWSFs strident support of the outfitters on this issue is pretty gross. This issue has nothing to do with sheep conservation. WSF and NMWSF have retained just short of a million dollars from their cuts of the auction and raffle sales. One would think that would be enough to keep them happy. The kicker is that the rules for the bids to do the raffle and auction sales are written in a way that it is all but impossible for any org except WSF and NMWSF to win the bids. But that is an issue for another day…

So if non resident hunters could draw, let’s say 6-7 bighorn tags in one year, and then the next year they are not able to draw any bighorn tags, that sounds like you effectively eliminated non resident bighorn draw tags for that year. I’m a pretty simple guy but I can handle that math. Sounds like the discussion is really procedural and trying to force legislators to make a move in order to fix an issue. That being said, I wish NM the best of luck in getting rid of that outfitter draw.

 

[Letthemgrow]

Obviously if the draw allocations were to change it would have no impact on NM Bighorn conservation funding.

You are assuming that non-residents won't choose to reciprocate the "F you" and not buy lottery tickets?

 

[TheJason]

I've got to hand it to them though, it takes some decent sized balls to move to a place where 90 percent of the people don't want you there.

Maybe they don’t care what people think. I won’t when I retire and move to Idaho.