Proposal to eliminate non-resident sheep tags in New Mexico

[BenInMT]

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.

Happy to drop these fictitious people off at the train station. Seriously though: move to Montana, take a massive pay cut, enjoy our 6 month winter, most of our restaurants are also “casinos” so it’s classy as hell here, the rural people that you think are like you are actually high on meth and monster energy drinks and they’ll steal anything that isn’t bolted down, you will face some of the highest housing prices in the nation while your kids get one of the worst educations. All of this and more can be yours. Do it, move here so you can drive your side by side around for 5 weeks a year and be a cool western hunter like you see on instagram. I $*)Q!#@$ dare you.

 

[BenInMT]

Murder?

Yeah why not.

 

[3855WIN]

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…

This is copied from the Wild Sheep Foundation. What part of it is false?

At a recent public meeting in New Mexico, a preliminary review of the Bighorn Sheep Rules was heard by the State Game Commission. The biggest issue discussed was the allocation of resident and non-resident sheep draw permits. Proposals presented by some individuals and sportsman’s organizations sought to increase bighorn sheep hunting opportunities for residents. Of the 50 state-wide permits, the discussion centered around the 7 permits available for non-resident. This discussion resulted in a push-pull debate over out-of-state hunters, outfitting, wild sheep conservation funding, and the historic success the state has seen in recovering its wild sheep resources.

The proposed rule changes, if adopted by the Commission, would eliminate all 7 non-resident draw allocations.

 

[Oak]

Cliff notes version:

• Statutes say that R/NR allocation will be set within the quota for each hunt code.
• Because there is no sheep hunt code with enough tags to allow for a NR quota by statute, NMGF has been lumping all sheep hunt codes together and setting the NR quota from the aggregate, against state statute.

From @abqbw's post:
"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."

So they are just asking them to change the statute and follow the statute.

 

[Labman]

If I had to pick an organization to stand behind and my choices were the NM Wildlife Federation and the Wild Sheep Foundation, the WSF would get my time, money, and effort every single time. I’ve seen the NMWF stand behind some garbage legislation. But, maybe I’m the crazy one.

 

[Khunter]

If I had to pick an organization to stand behind and my choices were the NM Wildlife Federation and the Wild Sheep Foundation, the WSF would get my time, money, and effort every single time. I’ve seen the NMWF stand behind some garbage legislation. But, maybe I’m the crazy one.

you are, in my humble opinion on this. WSF is clearly in the pocket of the rich fat cats and outfitters wanting welfare handouts on this and want to keep making cash of of NM gov tags.

Change that statute, allocate a few tags to nonresidents and problem solved.

 

[Labman]

Cliff notes version:

• Statutes say that R/NR allocation will be set within the quota for each hunt code.
• Because there is no sheep hunt code with enough tags to allow for a NR quota by statute, NMGF has been lumping all sheep hunt codes together and setting the NR quota from the aggregate, against state statute.

I’m at a loss regarding how the G&F is in violation of state statute. They lumped all the tags into a few hunt codes in order to remain compliant with the statute. Some individuals and one “conservation” organization don’t approve of how that was done, but one could easily argue the G&F is very much adhering to the specifics of the statute. If the NM G&F wasn’t in compliance then this organization wouldn’t be pushing for a legislative solution, they would have gone the judicial route. Could the commission change the hunt code deal? Sure, that is their prerogative and their role, but they have maintained their stance on the issue for this long, I don’t see it changing.

 

[Letthemgrow]

Does anyone have an update on this?

 

[Labman]

Does anyone have an update on this?

The Commission DID NOT pass any changes to what is currently in place.

 

[dmandoes]

The Commission DID NOT pass any changes to what is currently in place.

Could the commission pass anything? Not enough commissioners to make a vote count?

 

[Labman]

Could the commission pass anything? Not enough commissioners to make a vote count?

“If there are still only four commissioners in place at the August meeting, all four would have to vote in favor to adopt any new rule. Salazar-Henry’s opposition to the bighorn plan that New Mexico Department of Game and Fish staff recommended would be enough to block it. The commission needs to pass a bighorn sheep rule by the end of the year to establish hunts for coming years.”

And for those wondering…”The New Mexico Attorney General’s Office has confirmed it’s legal for the commission to lump the bighorn hunts under single huntcodes.”

 

[Labman]

I must not be the only crazy one.
“An overwhelming 70% of the public response generated over the past month was in favor of the Dept.’s current allocation process of lumping hunt codes and thus maintaining non-resident opportunity (406 in favor and 187 in opposition).”

 

[dmandoes]

I must not be the only crazy one.
“An overwhelming 70% of the public response generated over the past month was in favor of the Dept.’s current allocation process of lumping hunt codes and thus maintaining non-resident opportunity (406 in favor and 187 in opposition).”

Time for them to get a task force.

 

[TXLonghorn]

I feel like before bitching about another states NR policies, one should have to post what state they are a R in.

Its irritating, in the least to listen to non public land states even speak, let alone complain.

Here's a novel idea. GROW YOUR OWN DAMN SHEEP. Stop expecting a small handful of states to do it.

It pains me greatly to agree with Buzz, but the explosion of NR hunting, hasn't exactly lead to an explosion of herd numbers.

I read about the NR "supporting" "conservation". Yet, what's the end result? Dudes from Michigan squealing about Wyoming 90/10. Or (insert state here) demanding access to NM sheep.

Somehow it's become a "thing" that ID,UT,WY,MONT,AZ,NM,NV, and Alaska, OWE 42 other states the privledge public land AND animals to hunt/fish.

If your state doesn't offer sheep hunting, then remain silent, on what states that do, make as regs.

Or. There's plenty of high fence outfits where your "conservation" money can be spent, and they might even appreciate your Google rating.


The ONLY words any NR should ever speak, is "thank you for that opportunity". Your a guest. Act like it.

DONT MAKE ME AGREE WITH BUZZ, EVER AGAIN!!

Well I am from Texas. And I have hunted in Your state many many times and killed all your animals that I could do so legally. Your Fish and Game dept gladly took my money because its as green as yours and thats the bottom line.
I find it laughable that New Mexico residents think they have the financial means to maintain animal herds and improve habitat without outside money.
Every town Ive been to in the state looks like a junkyard where old trailer houses go to die. Where the social status of the resident is determined by the number of old car tires on the roof.

 

[dsotm]

As long as other states get to ban NM residents from their animals

 

[Oak]

As long as other states get to ban NM residents from their animals

Other states can manage their wildlife however their residents see fit.

 

[Bambistew]

What is the W$F stance on this? They adamantly oppose reducing NR participation in Alaska.

 

[HONEYBADGER]

IF they were to pass it, conservation orgs should stop sending them money. They can create their own conservation org that helps them with their sheep. Other orgs will direct dollars to states that allow all a chance at sheep hunting.

 

[David58]

Well I am from Texas. And I have hunted in Your state many many times and killed all your animals that I could do so legally. Your Fish and Game dept gladly took my money because its as green as yours and thats the bottom line.
I find it laughable that New Mexico residents think they have the financial means to maintain animal herds and improve habitat without outside money.
Every town Ive been to in the state looks like a junkyard where old trailer houses go to die. Where the social status of the resident is determined by the number of old car tires on the roof.

Hoo, boy! Where do I begin?

I won't.

But when at least 50% of the elk tags go to outfitted non-residents, NM residents have a reason to push back on that system. To be going years applying for tags and watching arrogant big hatted Texans come in and hunt because "they have the money to maintain animal herds" and New Mexicans do not is a special arrogance. A very special kind, and if you are ever curious just take a guess why Texans are so beloved here. Our preference is that you would stay home and hunt over your bait, but unfortunately the system in reality does not give precedence to residents at all and here you come.

The E-plus system is crooked, tags are awarded inconsistently, and and landowners are making major $$$, in many cases more than they make working the land. Outfitters are the big winners. It is a crooked system, and thankfully there is a growing movement to have e-plus worked over significantly. I may not see it, but the system will change, and you can go elsewhere to maintain a herd.

 

[Alabama]

What is the W$F stance on this? They adamantly oppose reducing NR participation in Alaska.

WSF is against resident only sheep tags in NM.