SB 312 - eliminating outfitter set asides.
- Thread starter MTGomer
- Start date
Here is the link. It is grouped in with some other things. I’m told that this is to get support from non hunting groups and legislators.
Go to page 122.
The bill appears long and that is because the department is being renamed. This makes it so that everywhere the department is named in statute, it appears in this bill as stricken out and renamed.
Go to page 122.
The bill appears long and that is because the department is being renamed. This makes it so that everywhere the department is named in statute, it appears in this bill as stricken out and renamed.
kylemcintyre67
Well-known member
It's hard to see this as progress when it would reduce overall opportunity.
How does it reduce opportunity? Are you talking about the NR tags being cut to 10%? That's pretty standard across the west. Being at 14% is what you get when you give ownership of the elk to outfitters.
kylemcintyre67
Well-known member
Well it takes away 6% of the tags that previously went to non-residents. That reduces opportunity for us.
It will be interesting to see who the NM legislators care about more; New Mexicans or Kyle Mcintyre from El Paso, TX.
Another way to look at it, is that (assuming you don't use an outfitter) is that you're now applying for 10% of the tags instead of 6%.
Hard to say what it will do to odds, since we don't know how many people will stop applying if they cant apply in the outfitter pool, where many times they get better odds than residents get.
People that can afford outfitters can still buy landowner tags. This doesn't do away with them.
With the existence of Landowner tags, plus 10% of draw tags, NM will still be giving NR much more opportunity than many western states.
However, 10% is more than 6%.
In some sheep units for example, this equates to a doubling in tags available to DIY NR hunters
Think of this from a legislator's standpoint. How are you going to get people on board with doing away with tag welfare, if New Mexicans don't get something out of it?
Its not going to pass, if you take all this money away from outfitters, who have a lobbying presence in Sante Fe, but keep giving the same amount of tags to NonResidents. What does the Resident hunter gain from that?
This makes it so legislators, who claim to be progressive democrats looking out for the po' folk of their state, have to defend depriving residents of tags, so outfitters can take rich Texans hunitng if they vote against this.
Its not going to pass, if you take all this money away from outfitters, who have a lobbying presence in Sante Fe, but keep giving the same amount of tags to NonResidents. What does the Resident hunter gain from that?
This makes it so legislators, who claim to be progressive democrats looking out for the po' folk of their state, have to defend depriving residents of tags, so outfitters can take rich Texans hunitng if they vote against this.
kylemcintyre67
Well-known member
I know right what a jerk, how dare my self interest be a factor in anything I do. The rich Texans aren't going to magically go away, and if they weren't interested in landowner tags before I fail to see how this will change anything. If I could afford landowner tags, I would buy them. Hell if I could afford stuff like that I would hunt here in Texas. I don't live in that reality so yeah a move like this stings a bit for folks like me.
D
Deleted member 18333
Guest
I totally support this Bill. Just as I will support it when Wyoming inevitably moves to a 10% NR allocation.
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
Guided folks will cry, I will now apply.
Buffs35
Well-known member
Yep, might start applying in NM again.Guided folks will cry, I will now apply.
Nick87
Well-known member
Maybe I'm mistaken but I believe if you cant afford those things you should like this change. The DIY hunters odds just got bumped up or am I missing something?
kylemcintyre67
Well-known member
How did the diy hunters numbers get bumped up? The entirety of the NR resident pool would be reduced by 6%. Is there some idea that everyone that applied in the outfitter pool previously will just give up and go away?
They'll likely buy landowner tags. There was a reason to use an outfitter in the first place (guaranteed access).
This may be hard for you to stomach, but this isn’t about helping you and I draw tags. It may, or may not do that, but either way, the change in our draw odds is simply a bi product.
What is important is that This bumps up the number of licenses available to New Mexican residents by 6% and decommercializes a public resource. It gives 6% more to the people who own the elk.
A 45 minute move to the west to Las Cruces and you own them too.
Last edited:
kylemcintyre67
Well-known member
I guess I don't understand why if the landowner tags weren't attractive before they would be now. The outfitter draw isn't guaranteed now, so the people applying in it were obviously prepared for the possibility they wouldn't draw. How would this change their minds? They can still put in the draw and then hire an outfitter if they are successful.
I get it, I absolutely agree that outfitter welfare is silly and counter to the way everything should work. This is not however increasing opportunity for NR hunters, it is a reduction.
I get it, I absolutely agree that outfitter welfare is silly and counter to the way everything should work. This is not however increasing opportunity for NR hunters, it is a reduction.
rmyoung1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2010
- Messages
- 2,409
Another thing to understand is the way the rounding rules in NM work. 6% in some really, really desirable units gets rounded to exactly 0 tags for nonguided nonresidents. Obviously zero tags means zero chance to draw. This change would bring back an opportunity for nonguided nonresidents in those units. So, even if draw results are one’s only motivation for support, there’s still reason to support this change. Any chance is infinitely better than no chance.
(See late rifle antelope in units 15 & 17 as examples of a tag available in the 10% outfitter pool but not available in the 6% nonguided allocation.)
Last edited:
