Welcome to NM, now go home.
"Same as it's ever been..."
Proposal to eliminate non-resident sheep tags in New Mexico
- Thread starter Alabama
- Start date
"Same as it's ever been..."
Bambistew
Well-known member
It will be pretty awkward trying to justify pimping a gov tag to NR I would think of it was the only NR yag available? Wonder how NM residents would feel about that? It's only one tag right? Looks like there is 2 NR tags and 4 outfitter tags? So 6
+ gov potentially to NR out of 50.
I can't see any action on this in either the August or October minutes. What happens now?
Curious why walk around kicking? The lumping trick was messy, but why do you care whether 84/10/6 is in statute or agency lumping practice?
The final version of the Bighorn Rule was passed on August 19. This is done within the game commission meetings but in a way it is separate than the actual meeting as it is done as a “rule making hearing”. You can find the transcript of the hearing on the Department’s webpage under the commission tab under the Hearing Archive tab.
As to your question about why I care if the allocation is done by 84/10/6 quota statute or game commission rule by lumping? It’s a great question. Thanks for asking. There are several reasons. Lumping was done specifically to avoid the quota statute. If the quota statute were followed there would be no nonresident bighorn tags in NM. Had the commission simply allowed the quota statute apply to bighorn like it has for every other species during the 2014, 2018, and now 2022 every 4 years rule making cycles the legislature would have assuredly re-written the quota statute long ago to deal with bighorn on a special basis as all other western states have. In a general sense I think people should be taken aback when government bodies take measures to avoid law instead of change laws if they don’t like the outcome. Why does the game commission continue to pull this stunt every four years instead of kick the issue to the legislature? It is because the outfitting industry and other forces of privatization are deathly afraid of what positive gains might be made in our quota law if it is opened by the legislature for change. They know how wildly unpopular the NM draw outfitter set aside is among both New Mexicans and Nonresidents. That’s what this is about. There is great fear among the outfitting industry that New Mexican hunters might be able to improve the prospects for both resident and nonresident unguided hunters if the quota statute is revisited by our legislature. It is a rational rear for sure because the outfitter set aside might be the most unpopular part of New Mexico’s tag allocation system among both residents and nonresidents. This is why WSF and NM Council of Outfitters and Guides resorted to dishonestly to keep lumping intact for bighorn tags. It’s not the bighorn tags themselves. A handful of nonresident bighorn tags would not be a noticeable loss to the outfitting industry. But elimination of the outfitter set aside for all species would. That is what they a lying about to protect. Another aspect of the quota statute that I do not like and would like corrected is that at low tag numbers in hunt codes, like the total of all bighorn ram tags, outfitters are awarded by quirks in ten math between 250% to 300% more tags than unguided nonresidents. For 2021 and 2022 there were two unguided nonresident and five outfitted (all nonresident) bighorn draw tags. Also, if you add in our bighorn landowner, auction, and raffle tags, about 25% of all New Mexico bighorn tags are awarded to nonresidents. The norm across the west is 10% or less. Also, as I pointed out to the game commission during 2014, 2018, and 2022, the game commission could have filed in federal court at anytime after a 2005 federal statute to have our quotas applied to bighorns, Ibex, and Oryx. Instead our commission ignored our pleas to file for 8 years. During this 8 years 49 bighorn tags and the majority of bighorn tags were awarded to nonresidents. 76% of all bighorn and 98% of desert bighorn tags over this 8 years that our commission sat on its ass were awarded to nonresidents. But the very moment the statute applied since it hurt nonresident and helped residents it was an emergency in the eyes of our commission and they left into action and started lumping. I argued during each rule hearing for the last 8 years that as the commission left in place no quota for bighorn for 8 years and unnecessarily gave up 49 bighorn tags to nonresidents that would have gone to residents under them existing quotas, what harm would there be in making New Mexicans only partially whole for the 49 bighorn tags the commission gave away from residents by letting us have all the bighorn tags for one or two seasons while the legislature fixed the statute. Those are the reasons why I think bighorn tags should be allocated between residents and nonresidents by a special provision in quota statute instead of the game commission gaming the system for outfitters. Let’s be honest. The game commission doesn’t care about nonresident hunters. They do all this for the outfitting industry.
New Mexico has the highest nonresident share of bighorn tags of any western state. What is so wrong about New Mexicans for thinking this is wrong. WSF and the NM Council of Outfitters and Guides have been flat out lying that New Mexicans have any desire or intention to eliminate nonresident bighorn tags in New Mexico. We have been very transparent about our intentions. And that is simply to have special quota statute provisions for bighorn that provides for an orderly allocation without violating the statute by game commission rule lumping bighorn hunt codes in a way that has never before or since been implemented for any other species.
I would want to try to claw back those 49 ram tags NM residents lost as well. That was wrong and 8 years is far too long to wait for NMGFD to correct that time period of unreasonably high NR allocation.
But not sure I would then try to reposition this battle as “all of us DIY res&NR vs outfitters”… Despite your denials – your efforts here were an attempt to completely zero out NRs on ram tags. Not because you are aligned with NRs against outfitters.
You know how long the legislature would take to correct this if lumping were to stop. And you saw an opportunity to potentially claw back ram tags in the interim to “get even” for those 49 errant NR ram tags.
Own it - don’t hide from it. It’s not unreasonable to say that NM residents should be paid back for those 49 tags.
You are absolutely incorrect in your accusation.
Here is the reasons why and how you are incorrect. First the proposal that I came up with and that we pushed to our game commission was a compromise between total lumping and no lumping. What we proposed and I pushed very very hard for was partial lumping. Its technical. If there are 13 permits in a hunt code it will net exactly 1 outfitter and 1 unguided nonresident tag and 11 resident tags. So the proposal we came up with to keep nonresidents from losing tags for even a season was to lump 13 desert ram and 13 rocky ram tags onto two hunt codes and move the rest of the tags (between about 11 and 13 each rocky ram and desert ran) into true hunt codes that would be all resident per quota statute math. The net effect would have been unguided nonresidents would have kept receiving what they did under full lumping, 1 Rocky ram and 1 desert ram. And outfitters would have been reduced by net 3 rocky plus desert ran tags, from 5 under full lumping to 2 under the partial lumping proposal. The partial lumping proposal was voted on by the game commission and lost by one vote. A signal of its reasonableness. And also of a symbol of our game commission being under undue influence by the forces of privatization and nonresident preference. This partial lumping proposal was submitted because it would provide motivation for the legislature to take up and actually fix bighorn tag allocation under the quota statute while preserving nonresident bighorn tags, both unguided and outfitted. Also, the timing of our proposal was designed to be immediately prior to the 2023 legislative session. This is important because only every other year, odd years, our legislature meets in a long session when legislature like this is tackled. Even years the legislature mostly only does budget. Your supposition that the legislature would take a long time to get around to bighorn quota does not credit the speed with which our government, Game and Fish, Game Commission, and legislature reacts to the nonresident lobby when they demand something. If outfitter tags were reduced the legislature would have taken up the issue in a New York minute.
If I was trying to eliminate nonresident bighorn hunting I wouldn’t hide it. I would own it. But we made a very reasonable compromise proposal that very specifically did not lower unguided nonresident bighorn tags. So reasonable it made it to vote at our game commission. In fact, during the entire once every four years big game rule cycle it was the lone measure that made it to a vote that would favor resident hunters over nonresident hunters in any way. A transfer of only 3 measly bighorn tags for residents instead of outfitted nonresidents and it lost. This is the New Mexico Game Commission in a nutshell. Actually I was pleasantly surprised we actually got it to a vote. I can’t remember in the nearly thirty years of active participation with our game commission when a measure that would take even a tiny bit from outfitters and give it to NM residents made it onto the agenda and especially to a vote.
You may apologize now for casting false dispersions on my efforts. Thank you.
Similar threads
